Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 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.
21. coats ] The meaning of the Aram. sarbl (only here and Dan 3:27) is uncertain (see the very full discussion in Ges. Thesaurus); but on the whole mantles is the most probable. This is the sense which the word has in the Talmud [230] , in which it occurs frequently (Ges. p. 971; Levy, NHWB [231] , s.v.), so that it has ancient usage in its favour. On the other hand, Aq. and Theod. ( ), LXX. in Dan 3:27 (94), Symm. ( ), Pesh., express the meaning trousers (though of a looser kind than those worn by us), an article of dress known independently (from Herod., and other authorities) to have been worn at least by the ancient Scythians and Persians, and to have been called by them . The word, in the same sense, passed into Arabic, in the form sirwl (e.g. in Saadyah’s version of Lev 6:3), as well as into several of the Romance languages. In both these senses the word may be originally Persian: in that of mantle, meaning properly (according to Andreas) a head-covering (* sarabra), for which in Persia the peasants often use their mantle; in that of trousers, corresponding to the Mod. Pers. shalwr, ‘under-breeches.’ The Syriac form of has however a different sibilant from the one which is here used; and, as Mr Stanley A. Cook remarks [232] , ‘mantles, long flowing robes, and therefore extremely liable to catch the flames,’ are more likely to be specially mentioned in the present connexion than trousers, or (R.V.) hosen.
[230] And so also, as a loan-word from the Aram., the Arabic sirbl: see Frnkel, Aram. Fremdwrter im Arab. (1886), p. 47.
[231] HWB. M. Levy, Neuhebrisches und Chaldisches Wrterbuch, 1876 89.
[232] ‘On the articles of dress mentioned in Dan 3:21,’ in the Journ. of Philology, xxvi. (1899), p. 306 ff.
their hosen ] Another uncertain word (Aram. paish). Sept. and Theod. render , ‘turbans’; Pesh. uses the same word, which, however, seems otherwise to be known only to the Syriac lexicographers, who explain it sometimes as a ‘tunic,’ sometimes as ‘trousers,’ sometimes as a kind of ‘gaiter’ (Payne Smit [233] Thes. Syr. col. 3098). R.V. tunics; marg. ‘Or, turbans.’
[233] yne Smith R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus.
hats ] The rendering hats (or caps) is supported by the fact that the same word karbl (in the fem.) seems in post-Bibl. Hebrew (Levy, s.v.) to denote some kind of covering for the head, and means certainly, both in the Talmud and in Syriac (P.S [234] 1810), the comb of a cock. Others, comparing what is apparently the cognate verb in 1Ch 15:27, render mantle; but the text of the passage quoted is uncertain.
[234] .S. R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Then these men were bound in their coats – They were seized just as they were. No time was given them for preparation; no change was made in their dress. In autos-da-fe of later times, it has been usual to array those who were to suffer in a peculiar dress, indicative of the fact that they were heretics, and that they deserved the flame. Here, however, the anger of the king was so great, that no delay was allowed for any such purpose, and they proceeded to execute the sentence upon them just as they were. The fact that they were thus thrown into the furnace, however, only made the miracle the more conspicuous, since not even their garments were affected by the fire. The word rendered coats, is in the margin rendered mantles. The Chaldee word ( sarbalyn) means, according to Gesenius, the long and wide pantaloons which are worn by the Orientals, from sarbel, to cover. The Greek word used in the translation is derived from this – sarabara – and the word sarbarides is still used in modern Greek. The Chaldee word is used only in this chapter. The Vulgate renders this, cum braccis suis – hence, the word breeches, and brogues. The garment referred to, therefore, seems rather to be what covered the lower part of their person than either a coat or mantle.
Their hosen – This word was evidently designed by our translators to denote drawers, or trousers – not stockings, for that was the common meaning of the word when the translation was made. It is not probable that the word is designed to denote stockings, as they are not commonly worn in the East. Harmer supposes that the word here used means properly a hammer, and that the reference is to a hammer that was carried as a symbol of office, and he refers in illustration of this to the plates of Sir John Chardin of carvings found in the ruins of Persepolis, among which a man is represented with a hammer or mallet in each hand. He supposes that this was some symbol of office. The more common and just representation, however, is to regard this as referring to an article of dress. The Chaldee word ( pattysh) is from patash, to break, to hammer ( patasso); to spread out, to expand; and the noun means
(1) a hammer; Isa 41:7; Jer 23:29; Jer 50:23; and
(2) a garment, probably with the idea of its being spread out, and perhaps referring to a tunic or under-garment.
Compare Gesenius on the word. The Greek is, tiarais, and so the Latin Vulgate, tiaris: the tiara, or covering for the head, turban. The probable reference, however, is to the under-garment worn by the Orientals; the tunic, not a little resembling a shirt with us.
And their hats – Margin, or turbans. The Chaldee word ( karbela’) is rendered by Gesenius mantle, pallium. So the version called the Breeches Bible, renders it clokes. Coverdale renders it shoes, and so the Vulgate, calceamentis, sandals; and the Greek, periknemisin, greaves, or a garment enclosing the lower limbs; pantaloons. There is certainly no reason for rendering the word hats – as hats were then unknown; nor is there any evidence that it refers to a turban. Buxtorf (Chaldee Lex.) regards it as meaning a garment, particularly an outer garment, a cloak, and this is probably the correct idea. We should then have in these three words the principal articles of dress in which the Orientals appear, as is shown by the preceding engraving, and from the ruins of Persepolis – the large and loose trousers; the tunic, or inner garment; and the outer garment, or cloak, that was commonly thrown over all.
And their other garments – Whatever they had on, whether turban, belt, sandals, etc.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 21. Their hats] This word, hat, is found only in this place in the Old Testament. The word sarbal properly means an outer garment. Herodotus, who lived about one hundred years after Daniel, says, “the dress of the Babylonians consisted of a tunic of linen reaching down to the feet; over this a tunic of woollen; and over all a white short cloak or mantle, ; and on their heads they wore turbans, .” Following this, Mr. Parkhurst translates the verse thus: “Then these three men were bound [ besarbaleyhon] in their CLOAKS, [ patesheyhon] their TURBANS, [ vecharbelathehon] and in their UPPER (woollen) TUNICS, [ ulebushehon] and their UNDER (linen) TUNICS.” And as, according to this interpretation, their sarbaley were their outermost garments, we see the propriety with which it is observed at Da 3:27 that these were not changed by the fire.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
This is observable and wonderful, that the fire should not catch their garments, being the most obnoxious to it.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
21. coats . . . hosen . . .hatsHERODOTUS[1.195] says that the Babylonian costume consisted of three parts:(1) wide, long pantaloons; (2) a woollen shirt; (3) an outermantle with a girdle round it. So these are specified[GESENIUS], “theirpantaloons, inner tunics (hosen, or stockings, are notcommonly worn in the East), and outer mantles.” Their being castin so hurriedly, with all their garments on, enhanced the miracle inthat not even the smell of fire passed on their clothes, though ofdelicate, inflammable material.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Then these men were bound in their coats,…. Their upper coats, cloaks, or mantles, as Aben Ezra and Jacchiades; though, according to the use of the word in the Arabic language, the “femoralia” r or breeches are meant:
their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments: their turbants on their heads, which were usually wore in those countries; and their stockings and shoes, and other under garments, as waistcoats and shirts; which through haste or negligence, or with design, were kept on them, to make their torment the greater; but were intended by the Lord to make the miracle the more conspicuous. According to Cocceius s and Bynaeus t, the first of these words signifies the outward covering of the body, as cloaks, c. the second the covering of the feet, as socks, shoes, and sandals; and the third the covering of the head, as caps, turbants, helmets, c. the last the inner garments that were under the upper ones:
and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace; in the manner and circumstances before related.
r “cum femoralibus”, Pagninus; so Syr. Ar.; “cum braccis suis”, V. L. s Expos. Dict. Chald. col. 1022. rad . t De Calceis Hebr. l. 2. c. 10. sect 4, 5, 6, 7.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Of the different parts of clothing named, are not hose, short stockings, from which Hitz. concludes that the enumeration proceeds from the inner to the outer clothing. This remark, correct in itself, proves nothing as to the covering for the legs. This meaning is given to the word only from the New Persian shalwa r , which in the Arabic is sara wil ; cf. Haug in Ew.’s bibl. Jahrbb. v. p. 162. But the word corresponds with the genuine Semitic word sirbal , which means tunica or indusium ; cf. Ges. Thes.
(Note: The lxx have omitted in their translation. Theodot. has rendered it by , and the third-named piece of dress by , which the lxx have rendered by . Theodoret explains it: . These are, according to Herod. vii. 161, the , i.e., braccae, worn by the Persians . Regarding Theodoret remarks: . Thus Theodot. and Theodor. expressly distinguish the ( ) from the ; but the false interpretation of by breeches has given rise to the confounding of that word with , and the identification of the two, the being interpreted of covering for the feet; and the Vulg. translates the passage: “ cum braccis suis et tiaris et calceamentis et vestibus ,” while Luther has “cloaks, shoes, and hats.” This confounding of the two words was authorized by the Greek scholiasts, to which the admission of the Persian shalwar into the Arabic saravilu may have contributed. In Suidas we find the right interpretation along with the false one when he says: . Hesychius, on the other hand, briefly explains by , , . Hence the word in the forms sarabara, siravara, saravara or saraballa, sarabela, is commonly used in the middle ages for hose, and has been transferred into various modern languages; cf. Gesen. Thes. p. 971.)
p. 970, and Heb. Lex. s. v. Accordingly, denotes under-clothing which would be worn next the body as our shirt. , for which the Keri uses the form , corresponding to the Syriac pets ayhun , is explained in the Hebr. translation of the Chald. portions of Daniel by , tunica , and is derived from , expandit (by the transposition of the second and third radicals). Thus the Syriac word is explained by Syr. lexicographers. Theodotion’s translation, , is probably only hit upon from the similarity of the sound of the Greek , the covering for the head worn by the . are mantles, from , R. , to bind, to lay around, with r intercalated, which occurs 1Ch 15:27 of the putting around or putting on of the (upper garment). are the other pieces of clothing (Aben Ezra and others), not mantles. For that was specially used of over-clothes (Hitz.) cannot be proved from Job 24:7 and 2Ki 10:22. We have here, then, the threefold clothing which, according to Herodotus, i. 195, the Babylonians wore, namely, the , the , the worn above it, , and the thrown above that, ; while under the word the other articles of clothing, coverings for the feet and the head, are to be understood.
(Note: With the setting aside of the false interpretation we have disposed of the objection against the historical character of the narrative which v. Leng. and Hitz. have founded on the statement of Herodotus l.c., that the Babylonians wore no hose, but that they were first worn by the Persians, who adopted them from the Medes.)
The separate articles of clothing, consisting of easily inflammable material, are doubtlessly mentioned with reference to the miracle that followed, that even these remained unchanged (Dan 3:27) in the fiery furnace. In the easily inflammable nature of these materials, namely, of the fine , we have perhaps to seek the reason on account of which the accused were bound in their clothes, and not, as Theodoret and most others think, in the haste with which the sentence against them was carried out.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
Here Daniel relates the miracle by which God liberated his servants. He has two parts: first, these three holy men walked untouched in the midst of the flame; and the fires consumed those attendants who east them into the furnace. The Prophet diligently enumerates whatever tends to prove the power of God. He says, since the king’s command was urgent, that is, since the king ordered in such anger the furnace to be heated, the flames devour the men who executed his orders. For in Job, (Job 18:5,) שביב, shebib, means “spark,” or the extremity of a flame. The sense of the Prophet is by no means obscure, since the extremity of the flame consumed those strong attendants by playing round them, while Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego walked through the fuel in the fire and flame. They were not in the extremity of the flame; for it is as if the Prophet had said — the king’s slaves were consumed by the very smoke, and the fire was without the slightest effect on the servants of God. Hence he says, these three fell down in the furnace of fire By saying they fell, it means they could not take care of themselves or attempt to escape; for he adds, they were bound. This might at first naturally suffocate them, till they were immediately consumed; but they remained untouched, and then walked about the furnace loose. We hereby see how conspicuous was God’s power, and how no falsehood of Satan’s could obscure it. And next, when the very points of the flame, or the fiery sparks, devour the servants, here again the deed is proved to be of God. Meanwhile, the result of the history is the preservation of these three holy men, so surprisingly beyond their expectation.
This example is set before us, to show us how nothing can be safer than to make God the guardian and protector of our life. For we ought not to expect to be preserved from every danger because we see those holy men delivered; for we ought to hope for liberation from death, if it be useful, and yet we ought not to hesitate to meet it without fear, if God so please it. But we should gather from our present narrative the sufficiency of God’s protection, if he wishes to prolong our lives, since we know our life to be precious to him; and it is entirely in his power, either to snatch us from danger, or to withdraw us to a better existence, according to his pleasure. We have an example of this in the case of Peter; for he was on one day led forth from prison, and the next day put to death. Even then God shewed his care of his servant’s life, although Peter at length suffered death. How so? Because he had finished his course. Hence, as often as God pleases, he will exert his power to preserve us; if he leads us onwards to death, we must be assured it is best for us to die, and injurious to us to enjoy life any longer. This is the substance of the instruction which we may receive from this narrative. It now follows: —
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(21) Their coats.The dresses spoken of here correspond with what Herodotus tells us (i. 195) of the Babylonian costume. As far as can be determined from the etymology of the words, the coat was an under-clothing, which covered the whole body; the hose was some species of tunicsomething spread out over the under-clothing; the hat (the only one of the three words of which no Hebrew root exists (see 1Ch. 15:27), was a sort of cloak, used probably for State occasions only.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
21. “Then these men were bound in their hosen [‘coats,’ Dan 3:27; rather ‘cloaks,’ or perhaps ‘trousers,’ Syr.], their tunics [margin, ‘turbans’], and their mantles, and their other garments” (R.V.). It was from the “hats” spoken of in the A.V. that George Fox drew his conclusion that no man should remove his hat in the presence of royalty (Bevan). The ancient Greek translators did not seem to know exactly what the garments were corresponding to these Aramaic words. The main point is that these articles of ordinary clothing which would naturally burn easily were preserved, as also the “other garments,” which may possibly refer to the flowing robes so common as the state dress of Babylonian officials (Meinhold).
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Then these men were bound in their hose, their turbans and their cloaks, and their other clothing, and were cast into the midst of the burning, fiery furnace. As a result, because the king’s command was urgently demanding, and the furnace intensely hot, the flame of the fire slew those men who took up Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, and these three men, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, fell, bound, down into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.’
Their fate was repeated twice to emphasise its awfulness, they were taken up to the roof of the furnace and cast in, and they fell down into it. There was no way of escape. But for the men called on to perform the duty the result was appalling. In their haste to respond to the king’s furious urgency, and in their lack of knowledge of the workings of such furnaces, especially when heated to such an intensity, they found themselves caught up in the deadly heat and were overcome and slain. And into that same deadly heat, and worse, went the men who had trusted in God.
When we look at this scene we can only be silent. How can we even begin to describe the courage and steadfastness of these men who so quietly and firmly went to their seeming dreadful fate? We can only sit and watch in awe.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Dan 3:21. Their hats Their turbans. As to the particulars of the dress of these young men, the first word seems to mean their principal garment, which hung loose and flowing down to their ancles, perhaps not unlike the Roman tunick; and Montfaucon in his Antiq. vol. 3: tells us, that the Babylonians, according to Herodotus, wore two tunicks, one linen, which fell down as low as their feet, and the other woollen, which they wore uppermost; upon there they also wore a Chlanidion, or kind of small cloak. The second word signifies a sort of hat or bonnet, which had for the most part brims or margins, but narrower than those of our modern hats. The third term, according to the versions, must mean their hose or high shoes; but I rather think, with some commentators, a hood or cloak may be intended, that hung down from the head over the shoulders, not unlike the Roman pallium, and of which sort probably was our Saviour’s cloak, Joh 19:23 which was woven without seam from top to bottom.Shaw tells us, that the mountain Arabs or Kabyles, who retain the primitive manners, have a cloak called a Burnoose, which seems to answer to this latter; and they have also an upper garment called Hyke, which may not much disagree with the former: “This last garment (he says) was six yards long, and five or six feet broad, and serves for a complete dress in the day, and for a covering at night.” The last word, being a general term for vestments of all sorts, may be supposed to comprehend their under garments, and all that are not recited before. Xenophon has given us an actual exhibition in the person of Cyrus of each of the parts of dress here before us, in his eighth book of the Cyropaedia, p. 460. Edit. Hutch.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
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.
Ver. 21. So these men were bound in their coats, &c. ] Which, for haste of the execution, were never taken off, as is usually done. But these executioners were swift to shed blood, and had blood again to drink, for they were worthy.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
coats = cloaks, or mantles.
hosen = tunics.
hats = turbans, mantles, or cloaks.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
in their: Herodotus says the Babylonish dress was a linen tunic, another of woollen, a white short cloak, and a turban.
coats: or, mantles
hats: or, turbans, Dan 3:21
Reciprocal: Gen 39:20 – into the prison Jer 29:22 – roasted Dan 5:19 – whom he would he slew Mat 13:42 – cast
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Dan 3:21. Hosen is from PATTIYSH which Strong defines, A gown (as if hammered out wide).” Many versions render the word mantle” or cloak. It was a loosefitting garment worn over the regular articles of clothing for a man, even including The hat in the present case. All of these articles were tied fast around the men and then they were cast into the burning fiery furnace.