Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 3:14
Nebuchadnezzar spoke and said unto them, [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?
14. Is it true ] Probably this is right (cf. Theod. ; Pesh. in truth), though it requires a slight change in the text ( [see Dan 2:5; Dan 2:8 ] for ). R.V. (with Ges.) of purpose (Hitz., Keil, of malicious purpose): upon this view the word would be a Hebraism [227] , from the rare root found in 1Sa 24:11; Exo 21:13; Num 35:20; Num 35:22 [228] : this however rather means to lie in wait (see R.V. of the passages quoted), being used of one aiming at the life of another, and the word found here would not be derived correctly even from this verb.
[227] The Syr. verb e d with derivatives, cited by Ges. in his Thes., is not recognized by Payne Smith (who has only e dad, from which the word found here could not be derived).
[228] Levy, NHWB. iv. 170, quotes also three examples (in the sense of lying in wait, or capturing) from Talmud and Midrash (cf. Chald. Wrterb. ii. 316).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Nebuchadnezzar spake and said unto them, Is it true – Margin, of purpose; that is, have you done this intentionally? Wintle renders this, Is it insultingly? Jacchiades says that the word is used to denote admiration or wonder, as if the king could not believe that it was possible that they could disregard so plain a command, when disobedience was accompanied with such a threat. De Dieu renders it, Is it a joke? That is, can you possibly be serious or in earnest that you disobey so positive a command? Aben Ezra, Theodotion, and Sandias render it as it is in margin, Have you done this of set purpose and design? as if the king had regarded it as possible that there had been a misunderstanding, and as if he was not unwilling to find that they could make an apology for their conduct. The Chaldee word ( tseda’) occurs nowhere else. It is rendered by Gesenius, purpose, design. That is, Is it on purpose? The corresponding Hebrew word ( tsadah) means, to lie in wait, to waylay, Exo 21:13; 1Sa 24:11, (12). Compare Num 35:20, Num 35:22. The true meaning seems to be, Is it your determined purpose not to worship my gods? Have you deliberately made up your minds to this, and do you mean to abide by this resolution? That this is the meaning is apparent from the fact that he immediately proposes to try them on the point, giving them still an opportunity to comply with his command to worship the image if they would, or to show whether they were finally resolved not to do it.
Do not ye serve my gods? – It was one of the charges against them that they did not do it, Dan 3:12.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Now when these men were brought before the king, though in rage, yet he doth not presently throw them into the fire, but makes inquiry by interrogatories, that he might see first if they were guilty, by hearing them speak for themselves, and telling them he expected obedience and conformity to his laws from them, and it was in vain to look for any indulgence from him, he would bate them nothing, they should be burned. What! do ye make a jest of my gods, and my religion, and my commands? so the word
tseda in the Syriac doth signify, to scoff or deride, as if he had said, Is it true indeed that ye refuse to worship my gods? do ye do it in earnest, or in jest? it seems by your carriage, if it be true what I hear of you, that ye slight my gods, and make a mock of my authority, but ye shall know there is no jesting with these edge-tools.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
14. Is it truerather, as theMargin [THEODOTION],”Is it purposely that?” c. Compare the Hebrew,Num 35:20 Num 35:22.Notwithstanding his “fury,” his past favor for themdisposes him to give them the opportunity of excusing themselves onthe ground that their disobedience had not been intentional;so he gives them another trial to see whether they would stillworship the image.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Nebuchadnezzar spake and said unto them, is it true,…. What I have heard of you, what you are charged with and accused of; surely it cannot be; so Aben Ezra and Saadiah interpret the word as we do, and all the Oriental versions: it is only used in this place: it is expressed by way of admiration, as Jacchiades observes; it being incredible to the king, what he could never believe, unless it appeared plain in his own eyes. Some o render it, is it a “desolation?” so Jarchi; is my decree such? or should you not obey it? was this suffered, nothing but disorder and desolation would follow in the kingdom: or, “is it of purpose?” as others p; have you done this willingly and knowingly, or through imprudence and inadvertency? if the latter, it is pardonable; if not, it cannot be borne with. De Dieu, from the Syriac use of the word, renders it, “is it a joke?” are you serious, and in good earnest, or in joke, “that ye worship not my gods? or do you mock me and them?”
O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; on whom I have conferred so many favours, raised from a low to a high estate, and yet used by you in this manner:
do ye not serve my gods; one would think he had no need to have asked this question; since he must needs know, that, by their nation and religion, they served only one God, and could serve no other; and that by their daily practice they never did, in which they were indulged:
nor worship the golden image that I have set up? it is for the sake of this the question is put; this was the thing his heart was set upon; and such was his pride, that he could not bear any control in it.
o “nunquid desolatio?” Montanus. So Jacchiades, and some in Ben Melech. p “An certo consilio?” Junius Tremellius “sive ex proposito?” Piscator; so Rabbenu Hai in Ben Melech; “an de industria?” Cocceius; “num revera, [vel] studiose?” Michaelis.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The trial of the accused.
Dan 3:14 The question the old translators incorrectly explain by Is it true? In the justice of the accusation Nebuchadnezzar had no doubt whatever, and has not this meaning. Also the meaning, scorn, which in Aram. has, and L. de Dieu, Hv., and Kran. make use of, does not appear to be quite consistent, since Nebuchadnezzar, if he had seen in the refusal to do homage to the image a despising of his gods, then certainly he would not have publicly repeated his command, and afforded to the accused the possibility of escaping the threatened punishment, as he did (Dan 3:15). We therefore agree with Hitz. and Klief., who interpret it, after the Hebr. , Num 35:20., of malicious resolution, not merely intention, according to Gesen., Winer, and others. For all the three could not unintentionally or accidentally have made themselves guilty of transgression. The form we regard as a noun form with interrog. prefixed in adverbial cases, and not an Aphel formation: Scorning, Shadrach, etc., do ye not serve? (Kran.) The affirmative explanation of the verse, according to which the king would suppose the motive of the transgression as decided, does not agree with the alternative which (Dan 3:15) he places before the accused. But if is regarded as a question, there is no need for our supplying the conjunction before the following verb, but we may unite the in one sentence with the following verb: “ are ye of design … not obeying? ” Nebuchadnezzar speaks of his god in contrast to the God of the Jews.
Dan 3:15 taken with the following clause, … , is not a circumlocution for the future (according to Winer, Chald. Gram. 45, 2). This does not follow from the use of the simple future in contrast, but it retains its peculiar meaning ready. The conclusion to the first clause is omitted, because it is self-evident from the conclusion of the second, opposed passage: then ye will not be cast into the fiery furnace. Similar omissions are found in Exo 32:32; Luk 13:9. For the purpose of giving strength to his threatening, Nebuchadnezzar adds that no god would deliver them out of his hand. In this Hitz. is not justified in supposing there is included a blaspheming of Jehovah like that of Sennacherib, Isa 37:10. The case is different. Sennacherib raised his gods above Jehovah, the God of the Jews; Nebuchadnezzar only declares that deliverance out of the fiery furnace is a work which no god can accomplish, and in this he only indirectly likens the God of the Jews to the gods of the heathen.
Dan 3:16 In the answer of the accused, is not, contrary to the accent, to be placed in apposition to ; for, as Kran. has rightly remarked, an intentional omission of in addressing Nebuchadnezzar is, after Dan 3:18, where occurs in the address, as little likely as that the Athnach is placed under only on account of the apposition going before, to separate from it the nomen propr.; and an error in the placing of the distinctivus , judging from the existing accuracy, is untenable. “The direct address of the king by his name plainly corresponds to the king’s address to the three officers in the preceding words, Dan 3:14.” We are not to conclude from it, as Hitz. supposes, “that they address him as a plebeian,” but much rather, as in the corresponding address, Dan 3:14, are to see in it an evidence of the deep impression sought to be produced in the person concerned.
is the accus., and is not to be connected with : as to this command (Hv.). If the demonstrative were present only before the noun, then the noun must stand in the status absol. as Dan 4:15 (18). , from the Zend. paiti = , and gam , to go, properly, “the going to,” therefore message, edict, then generally word (as here) and matter (Ezr 6:11), as frequently in the Targ., corresponding to the Hebr. .
Dan 3:17-18 denotes the ethical ability, i.e., the ability limited by the divine holiness and righteousness, not the omnipotence of God as such. For this the accused did not doubt, nor will they place in question the divine omnipotence before the heathen king. The conclusion begins after the Athnach, and means, not see! lo! (according to the old versions and many interpreters), for which Daniel constantly uses or , but it means if, as here the contrast , and if not (Dan 3:18), demands. 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., v. Leng., and Hitz. maintain, but only the confidence of faith and a humble submission to the will of God. “The three simply see that their standpoint and that of the king are altogether different, also that their standpoint can never be clearly understood by Nebuchadnezzar, and therefore they give up any attempt to justify themselves. But that which was demanded of them they could not do, because it would have been altogether contrary to their faith and their conscience. And then without fanaticism they calmly decline to answer, and only say, ‘Let him do according to his own will;’ thus without superstitiousness committing their deliverance to God” (Klief.).
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
(14) Is it true?Literally, Is it of design or of set purpose that you have done this?
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
‘Nebuchadnezzar answered and said to them, “Is it right, O Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, that you do not serve my god, nor worship the golden image that I have set up?” Now if you are ready so that at the time that you hear the sound of the horn, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery and dulcimer, and all kinds of music, you fall down and worship the image which I have made — 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 who will deliver you out of my hands?’
It says something for the regard in which these men were held that they were given a second chance. They might easily have summarily been put to death. He also had some regard for their God, for he knew that He was a revealer of secrets. But it was a very different matter Him delivering them from a burning fiery furnace. Thus they had to make the choice. Either at the given signal they fall down and worship the golden image, or into the furnace they went without mercy. He would not brook disobedience, which was both rebellion against the state and an insult to his god. It was up to them.
His words suggest that there had been some discussion on the matter, for he clearly knew the reason for their objections. It was this strange but powerful God of theirs. But they had to remember that he and his god were the victors, and they must therefore submit themselves to them.
Notice the stress on the source of the idol. ‘Which I have set up — which I have made.’ This was no god acting in independence, it was a piece of metal which was there as a result of decisions of Nebuchadnezzar. It was a man made thing, no matter how superior the man may be (compare Isa 44:17).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
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?
Ver. 14. Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, &c., ] q.d., I can very hardly believe it. Certe tu non occidisti patrem; Sure thou didst not kill thy father! saith Augustus Caesar once to a parricide, whom he had in examination; and Suetonins saith that it was usual with him to examine malefactors in that way, as if he could not believe any such thing of them. Some a render the text Num de industria aut certo consilio? Do ye this on set purpose to cross and provoke me? Others, as Montanus, Nunquid desolatio? q.d., What! you to oppose the command of a king? If this be suffered, what disorder, yea, desolation, must needs follow! Pride ever aggravateth anything done against its own mind.
a Tremel., Buxtorf.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
true = of set purpose.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
true: or, of purpose, Exo 21:13, Exo 21:14
my gods: Dan 3:1, Dan 4:8, Isa 46:1, Jer 50:2
Reciprocal: Isa 44:10 – General Joh 19:10 – knowest
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Dan 3:14. In spite of his intense feeling Nebuchadnezzar was disposed to question the correctness of the report, or, if it was found to be true, to give the accused parties another chance. Hence he put the question directly to them and specified the charge that he had heard against them.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Dan 3:14-15. Nebuchadnezzar said, Is it true, O Shadrach? &c. Or, of purpose, as the margin reads it, and as the word is used, Exo 21:13. Is it designedly and deliberately done, or was it only through inadvertency, that you have not served my gods? What! you that I have nourished and brought up; that have been educated and maintained at my charge; that I have been so kind to, and done so much for; you that have been in such reputation for wisdom, and therefore should better have known your duty to your prince; what! do not you serve my gods, nor worship the golden image which I have set up? Observe, reader, the faithfulness of Gods servants to him has often been the wonder of their enemies and persecutors, who think it strange that they run not with them to the same excess of riot. Now if ye be ready, &c. He is willing to admit them to a new trial; if they did purpose before not to worship his gods, yet it may be, upon second thoughts, they will change their minds; it is therefore repeated to them upon what terms they now stand: 1st, The king is willing that the music should play again, for their sakes only, to soften them into a compliance; and if they will not, like the deaf adder, stop their ears, but will hearken to the voice of the charmers, and will worship the golden image, well and good, their former omission shall be pardoned. But, 2d, The king is resolved, if they persist in their refusal, that they shall immediately be cast into the fiery furnace, and shall not have so much as an hours reprieve. Thus does the matter lie in a little compass; Turn or burn, is the kings language. And because he knew they buoyed themselves up in their refusal with a confidence in their God, he insolently sets him at defiance, saying, And who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands? Let him deliver you if he can. Now he forgot what he himself once owned, that their God was a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, Dan 2:47. Proud men are still ready to say, as Pharaoh. Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice?