{"id":21820,"date":"2022-09-24T09:12:10","date_gmt":"2022-09-24T14:12:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-daniel-32\/"},"modified":"2022-09-24T09:12:10","modified_gmt":"2022-09-24T14:12:10","slug":"exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-daniel-32","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-daniel-32\/","title":{"rendered":"Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 3:2"},"content":{"rendered":"

Then Nebuchadnezzar the king sent to gather together the princes, the governors, and the captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counselors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, to come to the dedication of the image which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up. <\/i><\/b><\/h3>\n

2<\/strong>. princes<\/em> ] satraps<\/strong>, Aram. ’achashdarpan<\/em>, both this and the Gk. , , being corruptions of the Old Persian kshatra-pwan<\/em>, lit. ‘protector of the realm,’ but denoting by usage (cf. on Dan 6:1<\/span>) the chief ruler of a province. The term, as is well known, is a standing Persian one: in the O.T., it recurs Dan 3:3<\/em><\/span> ; Dan 3:27<\/em><\/span><\/em>, Dan 6:1-4<\/span>; Dan 6:6-7<\/span> (A.V. princes<\/em>); and Ezr 8:36<\/span>, Est 3:12<\/span>; Est 8:9<\/span>; Est 9:3<\/span> (A.V. lieutenants<\/em>); R.V. always satraps<\/em>. The use of the word here is an anachronism: both the name and the office were Persian, not Babylonian.<\/p>\n

governors<\/em> ] praefects<\/strong>. The word ( s<\/em> e<\/em> gan<\/em>) explained on Dan 2:48<\/span>.<\/p>\n

captains<\/em> ] governors<\/strong> (R.V.), Aram. pechah<\/em>, a term also (like s<\/em> e<\/em> gan<\/em>) of Assyrian origin, often used in Assyrian of the governor of a conquered province. It found its way into Hebrew, and is used in the O.T. both of an Assyrian officer (Isa 36:9<\/span> = 2Ki 18:24<\/span>: A.V., R.V. captain<\/em>), of Babylonian officers (Jer 51:57<\/span>; Eze 23:6<\/span>; Eze 23:12<\/span>; Eze 23:23<\/span>: A.V. captains<\/em>, R.V. governors<\/em>), and especially, in post-exilic writings, of the governor of a Persian province (Hag 1:1<\/span>; Hag 2:2<\/span>; Mal 1:8<\/span>; Ezr 5:3<\/span>; Ezr 5:6<\/span>; Neh 2:7<\/span>; Neh 2:9<\/span>, and elsewhere); as well as once or twice more generally (1Ki 20:24<\/span>; Jer 51:23<\/span>; Jer 51:28<\/span>). In Dan. it recurs Dan 3:3<\/em><\/span> ; Dan 3:27<\/em><\/span><\/em>, Dan 6:7<\/span>.<\/p>\n

judges<\/em> ] So Dan 3:3<\/em><\/span>. Aram. ’adargzar<\/em>, in all probability the old Pers. andar-zaghar<\/em>, later Pers. endarzgar<\/em>, ‘counsel-giver,’ a title which was still in use under the Sassanian kings (Nldeke, Tabari<\/em>, p. 462). R.V. marg.<\/em> ‘chief soothsayers’ implies a very improbable etymology.<\/p>\n

treasurers<\/em> ] So Dan 3:3<\/em><\/span>: Aram. g<\/em> e<\/em> dbar<\/em>. An uncertain word. It may<\/em> be a textual corruption, or a faulty pronunciation, of gizbr<\/em>, ‘treasurer’ (Pehlevi ganzavar<\/em>, Pers. ganjvar<\/em>), which is found in Ezr 1:8<\/span>; Ezr 7:21<\/span>; it may<\/em> have arisen by dittography from the following d<\/em> e<\/em> thbar<\/em> [217] ; it may<\/em> be an error for haddbar<\/em> (in the plur., for ), the word which occurs in Dan 3:24<\/em><\/span> ; Dan 3:27<\/em><\/span><\/em>, Dan 4:36<\/span>, Dan 6:7<\/span> (see on Dan 3:24<\/em><\/span>).<\/p>\n

[217] It is some support to this view that whereas the Aramaic text has in both Dan 3:2<\/em><\/span> and Dan 3:3<\/em><\/span> eight<\/em> names of officials, the Sept. and Theod. have each only seven: see Lagarde’s lucid exposition of the facts in Agathangelus<\/em>, p. 157.<\/p>\n

counsellers<\/em> ] justices<\/strong> (so Dan 3:3<\/em><\/span>): Aram. d<\/em> e<\/em> thbar<\/em>, from the Old Pers. dtabara<\/em>, Pehlevi dtbar<\/em>, Modern Pers. dwar<\/em>, properly ‘law-bearer,’ from dt<\/em>, ‘law,’ and bar<\/em>, an affix meaning ‘bearer.’ Cf. the of Hdt. iii. 14, 31, Dan 3:25<\/span>, vii. 194. This word has been found by Hilprecht (frequently) in the commercial inscriptions belonging to the reigns of Artaxerxes I. and Darius II. (b.c. 465 425, 424 405), excavated recently at Nippur by the expedition organized by the American University of Pennsylvania.<\/p>\n

sheriffs<\/em> ] Aram. tiphty<\/em>; only found besides in Dan 3:3<\/em><\/span>, and of very uncertain meaning. Bevan thinks it may be the mutilated form of some Persian title ending in pat<\/em>, ‘chief’; and so Behrmann compares the Sanskr. adhipati<\/em>, which would correspond to an Old Pers. adipati<\/em>, ‘over-chief’: while Andreas [218] proposes to read for , i.e. denpety<\/em>, ‘chiefs of religion,’ i.e. priestly dignitaries. Lawyers<\/em> (R.V. marg.<\/em>) depends upon an improbable connexion with the Arab. ’aft<\/em>, to notify a decision of the law (whence Mufti<\/em>, a jurisconsult).<\/p>\n

[218] In the glossary in Marti’s Gramm. der Bibl.-Aram. Sprache<\/em>, p. 89.<\/p>\n

and all the rulers of the provinces<\/em> ] conceived apparently as subordinate to the ‘satraps,’ and so as forming the class in which Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego were included (Dan 2:49<\/span>). It has often been asked, where was Daniel? Possibly he is to be regarded as not included in the classes of officials enumerated, on account of his exceptional position at the court (Dan 2:49<\/span>): but in point of fact the narrative seems to be written without reference to Daniel; so that more probably the question is one which the author did not deem it necessary to answer.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Then, Nebuchadnezzar the king sent to gather together the princes – <\/B>It is difficult now, if not impossible, to determine the exact meaning of the words used here with reference to the various officers designated; and it is not material that it should be done. The general sense is, that he assembled the great officers of the realm to do honor to the image. The object was doubtless to make the occasion as magnificent as possible. Of course, if these high officers were assembled, an immense multitude of the people would congregate also. That this was contemplated, and that it in fact occurred, is apparent from Dan 3:4<\/span>, Dan 3:7<\/span>. The word rendered princes (<\/span> ‘achash<\/I>e<\/I><\/SUP>dar<\/I>e<\/I><\/SUP>p<\/I>e<\/I><\/SUP>naya’<\/I>) occurs only in Daniel, in Ezra, and in Esther. In Dan 3:2-3<\/span>, Dan 3:27<\/span>; Dan 6:1-4<\/span>, Dan 6:6-7<\/span>, it is uniformly rendered princes; in Ezr 8:36<\/span>; Est 3:12<\/span>; Est 8:9<\/span>; Est 9:3<\/span>, it is uniformly rendered lieutenants. The word means, according to Gesenius (Lex.), satraps, the governors or viceroys of the large provinces among the ancient Persians, possessing both civil and military power, and being in the provinces the representatives of the sovereign, whose state and splendor they also rivaled. The etymology of the word is not certainly known. The Persian word satrap seems to have been the foundation of this word, with some slight modifications adapting it to the Chaldee mode of pronunciation.<\/P>

The governors – <\/B><\/span> sg<\/I>e<\/I><\/SUP>naya’<\/I>. This word is rendered governors in Dan 2:48<\/span> (see the note at that place), and in Dan 3:3<\/span>, Dan 3:27<\/span>; Dan 6:7<\/span>. It does not elsewhere occur. The Hebrew word corresponding to this – <\/span> s<\/I>e<\/I><\/SUP>ganym<\/I> – occurs frequently, and is rendered rulers in every place except Isa 41:25<\/span>, where it is rendered princes: Ezr 9:2<\/span>; Neh 2:16<\/span>; Neh 4:14<\/span> (7); Neh 5:7<\/span>, Neh 5:17<\/span>; Neh 7:5<\/span>; Jer 51:23<\/span>, Jer 51:28<\/span>, Jer 51:57<\/span>; Eze 23:6<\/span>, Eze 23:12<\/span>, Eze 23:23<\/span>, et al. The office was evidently one that was inferior to that of the satrap, or governor of a whole province.<\/P>

And the captains – <\/B><\/span> pachavata’<\/I>. This word, wherever it occurs in Daniel, is rendered captains, Dan 3:2-3<\/span>, Dan 3:27<\/span>; Dan 6:7<\/span>; wherever else it occurs it is rendered governor, Ezr 5:3<\/span>, Ezr 5:6<\/span>, Ezr 5:14<\/span>; Ezr 6:6-7<\/span>, Ezr 6:13<\/span>. The Hebrew word corresponding to this (<\/span> pechah<\/I>) occurs frequently, and is also rendered indifferently, governor or captain: 1Ki 10:15<\/span>; 2Ch 9:14<\/span>; Ezr 8:36<\/span>; 1Ki 20:24<\/span>; Jer 51:23<\/span>, Jer 51:28<\/span>, Jer 51:57<\/span>, et al. It refers to the governor of a province less than satrapy, and is applied to officers in the Assyrian empire, 2Ki 18:24<\/span>; Isa 36:9<\/span>; in the Chaldean, Eze 23:6<\/span>, Eze 23:23<\/span>; Jer 51:23<\/span>; and in the Persian, Est 8:9<\/span>; Est 9:3<\/span>. The word captains does not now very accurately express the sense. The office was not exclusively military, and was of a higher grade than would be denoted by the word captain, with us.<\/P>

The judges – <\/B><\/span> ‘adar<\/I>e<\/I><\/SUP>gaz<\/I>e<\/I><\/SUP>raya’<\/I>. This word occurs only here, and in Dan 3:3<\/span>. It means properly great or chief judges – compounded of two words signifying greatness, and judges. See Gesenius, (Lex.)<\/P>

The treasurers – <\/B><\/span> g<\/I>e<\/I><\/SUP>dab<\/I>e<\/I><\/SUP>raya’<\/I>. This word occurs nowhere else. The word <\/span> gizbar<\/I>, however, the same word with a slight change in the pronunciation, occurs in Ezr 1:8<\/span>; Ezr 7:21<\/span>, and denotes treasurer. It is derived from a word (<\/span> ganaz<\/I>) which means to hide, to hoard, to lay up in store.<\/P>

The counselors – <\/B><\/span> d<\/I>e<\/I><\/SUP>thab<\/I>e<\/I><\/SUP>raya’<\/I>. This word occurs nowhere else, except in Dan 3:3<\/span>. It means one skilled in the law; a judge. The office was evidently inferior to the one denoted by the word judges.<\/P>

The sheriffs – <\/B>A sheriff with us is a county officer, to whom is entrusted the administration of the laws. In England the office is judicial as well as ministerial. With us it is merely ministerial. The duty of the sheriff is to execute the civil and criminal processes throughout the county. He has charge of the jail and prisoners, and attends courts, and keeps the peace. It is not to be supposed that the officer here referred to in Daniel corresponds precisely with this. The word used (<\/span> tptaye’<\/I>) occurs nowhere else. It means, according to Gesenius, persons learned in the law; lawyers. The office had a close relation to that of Mufti among the Arabs, the term being derived from the same word, and properly means a wise man; one whose response is equivalent to law.<\/P>

And all the rulers of the provinces – <\/B>The term here used is a general term, and would apply to any kind of officers or rulers, and is probably designed to embrace all which had not been specified. The object was to assemble the chief officers of the realm. Jacchiades has compared the officers here enumerated with the principal officers of the Turkish empire, and supposes that a counterpart to them may be found in that empire. See the comparison in Grotius, in loc<\/I>. He supposes that the officers last denoted under the title of rulers of the provinces were similar to the Turkish Zangiahos or viziers. Grotius supposes that the term refers to the rulers of cities and places adjacent to cities – a dominion of less extent and importance than that of the rulers of provinces.<\/P>

To come to the dedication of the image … – <\/B>The public setting it apart to the purposes for which it was erected. This was to be done with solemn music, and in the presence of the principal officers of the kingdom. Until it was dedicated to the god in whose honor it was erected, it would not be regarded as an object of worship. It is easy to conceive that such an occasion would bring together an immense concourse of people, and that it would be one of peculiar magnificence.<\/P><\/p>\n

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Dan 3:2<\/span><\/p>\n

Then Nebuchadnezzar, the king, sent to gather together the princes, the governors.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Society<\/strong><\/p>\n

Society, the union of the many for the interest of all, seems ever to have been a principal object of Gods care and protection. His providence, in the order of nature, is manifestly directed to gather men together, to bind them to one another by the powerful bonds of mutual responsibility, and by the ineffaceable sentiments of justice and humanity.
In the revealed or written law God has caused religion and society to advance together. He has, in a manner, amalgamated them with each other. In defining our obligations with respect to Himself, He has defined our mutual engagements towards each other. All the precepts of the decalogue tend to the general utility of mankind. The object of the Gospel is to make of all the inhabitants of the world but one single people–of that people but one family; and to imbue that family with but one single aspiration: Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom Thou hast given Me, that they may be one as We are. And we may assert of Jesus Christ in reference to Society, what He asserted of Himself in reference to the ancient law, that He did not come to destroy, but to fulfil. In fact, the intercourse which we carry on among ourselves gives birth to four descriptions of duty essential to the happiness of mankind, and to the tranquility of the social condition. Political duties, which are the foundations of society; magisterial duties, which are its security; charitable duties, which are its bonds; conventional duties, which are its elegancies. Now, it is religion alone that enforces and sanctifies those duties, and, therefore, it alone really protects the interests of society. Now, the error of all others prejudicial to society, and nevertheless an error which is very common, is to imagine that the various conditions existing in the world are no more than the result of chance or of necessity–that it is not necessary to refer to Divine wisdom for the explanation of the fact, that our wants once ascertained, it is perfectly natural that we should seek in the industry of others for those resources we cannot discover in ourselves–that this exchange of services has produced that variety of conditions into which society is divided–and that independently of Providence, nature has conferred authority upon the father of a family, strength given rule to kings, adulation created the influence of the great, the public safety suggested the office of the magistrate, luxury and appetite have been the parents of all the elegant arts. Would a father (and this is the title by which He delights to be called) forget his children, and leave their future prospects uncertain and wavering? No; and, therefore, religion displays to us His providence directed to abundantly supplying our wants and even luxuries. And how? Why, by means of that variety of social conditions, of which He alone is the Author. For what other Being than He, who from the discord of the elements called forth the harmony of the universe, could bind together and incorporate so many opposing influences, and direct them towards one only end? What other Being than He, who by means of a few grains of sand arrests the fury of the waves, could discipline so many furious passions, and fix the invisible limits which they cannot pass?
Nevertheless, I cannot deny that there is a specious objection often urged to this fundamental truth; and that is, the great inequality of conditions among mankind. Wherefore, it may be said, wherefore is it that of the same clay are fashioned vessels of honour and vessels of dishonour? Why that immense distance that separates one man from another? Why so many enjoyments and so much liberty on the one hand, and so many privations and so much bondage on the other? Is God an accepter of persons? What do you require Him to do? That He should establish complete equality amongst us? Let us suppose that He has done so, and nosy mark the consequences. We are all equally independent, equally powerful, equally great, equally rich. And now tell us of what advantage would that independence be to us. Should we be competent to supply all our own requirements, and should we have no need to apply to others to assist us in our necessity? Of what advantage would our power be to us? To what use could we apply it? Of what advantage would our grandeur be to us? Would it attract towards us one single particle of homage or of respect? Of what advantage would our riches be to us? how could we employ them? That complete equality once established even, would it last long? Would our ambition continue to be satisfied? Would it patiently endure so many equals? Would it not aspire to domination? And what restraint would be applicable to control it? We should all be rivals, and continually in a state of civil war. That complete equality once established, who amongst us would undertake to cultivate the ground, to supply the most pressing wants, to procure the ordinary necessaries of life? What law, what authority would there be to compel us to do so? We should perish in consequence of our greatness and abundance; we should obtain nothing but worthless superfluities while we were requiring actual food and shelter. In short, to make men all equally fortunate is but another term for rendering them all equally wretched. There must be a head of a state, that the state may escape the infliction of many tyrants; there must be great men, princes and governors, to protect the weak; there must be warriors and captains,<\/strong> to defend the country; there must be magistrates, judges, counsellors, and sheriffs, to prevent injustice, and to punish crime; there must be the rich, the treasurers, to employ labour and to reward it; there must be the poor and needy, that the inconveniences which poverty entails may serve as a spur to indolence and a warning to sloth. Society rests upon these different states as upon buttresses that support it. Now, it would be perfectly superfluous in me to prove to you that labour is the condition on which society exists–that in certain respects even political commotions themselves are less dangerous than apathy and sloth–that happiness consists in the mutual understanding which should exist between various classes, who, acting in concert, and depending upon each other for an interchange of good offices, meet together by different roads which converge towards the same centre. Well, it is religion alone which imparts a true impetus to that activity, by the peculiar stress it lays upon the conscientious discharge of the various social duties–duties so peculiar to each separate condition, that every individual is required personally to fulfil them–so essential, that they will hold the foremost place in the examination, which at the last great day the Sovereign Judge will institute–so indispensable, that their absence implies an absence of piety as well,since without holiness no man shall see the Lord. Does human policy watch as carefully over the interests of society? Does it rise up to protest with equal sternness against those indifferent spectators who reap abundantly in the field wherein they have not sown? Of the vast multitude of men of whom society is composed, how few serve it from other motives than ambition or emolument! The love of glory urges on the former, the thirst of riches influences the latter. Fortunately nature condemns from their very birth the greater number to struggle and to toil. And now observe the distinguishing glory of our holy faith. Not content with enjoining the fulfilment of the various social duties, it sets forth as well the manner in which those duties should be fulfilled. Is it no service to society that religion enjoins that the duties of the state be discharged with intelligence? Abound in knowledge and in all diligence. And who can fail to feel how fatal to the interests of society would be the influence of those in power if destitute of the necessary knowledge? If they be warriors, in spite of their valour and intrepidity, to what dangers would they not expose their country? Or is it no service to society that religion enjoins that the duties of the state be discharged with decorum? Study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, that ye may walk honestly towards them that are without. Or does religion confer no benefit on society when it enjoins, that the motive of action when we are serving our fellow-men should be a desire to please God–not slothful in business, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord? No other motive would be pure enough nor noble enough to elevate us above human considerations and our own self-interest. Were Christianity universally practised even there only where it is professed–were all mankind to regulate their conduct by the maxims of the Gospel, and careful to be guided by heavenly motives only; with God over all disposing everything according to His wisdom, regulating everything by His will, animating everything by His Spirit, enriching everything by His liberality, sanctifying everything by His grace, sustaining everything by His power–at the sight of a state of society like this, who would not be tempted to exclaim with Balaam, as he contemplated the camp of Israel, How goodly are thy tents, O Jacob, and thy tabernacles, O Israel? (J<\/em>. Jessopp, M<\/em>.A<\/em>.)<\/p>\n

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Verse 2<\/span>. Sent to gather together the princes<\/B><\/I>] It is not easy to show what these different offices were, as it is difficult to ascertain the meaning of the Chaldee<\/I> words. Parkhurst<\/I> analyzes them thus: – <\/P>

<\/P>

The PRINCES<\/B><\/I>] achashdarpenaiya<\/I>, from achash,<\/I> great<\/I> or eminent<\/I>, and dar<\/I>, “to go about freely,” and panim<\/I>, “the presence.” Satraps or privy counsellors who had free access to the presence of the king.<\/P>

<\/P>

The GOVERNORS<\/B><\/I>] signaiya, lieutenants<\/I> or viceroys<\/I>, for sagan<\/I>, among the Hebrews, was the name of the high priest’s deputy<\/I>.<\/P>

<\/P>

The CAPTAINS<\/B><\/I>] pachavatha<\/I>, from pach, to extend<\/I>, because set over those provinces that had been annexed<\/I> to the kingdom by conquest. Pashas<\/I> – This word and office are still in use in Asiatic countries. By corruption we pronounce bashaw<\/I>.<\/P>

<\/P>

The JUDGES<\/B><\/I>] adargazeraiya<\/I>, from adar, noble<\/I> or magnificent<\/I>, and gazar, to decree<\/I>. The nobles, the assistants to the king in making laws, statutes, c. The same probably in Babylon, as the House of Lords<\/I> in England.<\/P>

<\/P>

The TREASURERS<\/B><\/I>] gedaberaiya<\/I>, from ganaz<\/I>, (the zain<\/I> being changed into daleth<\/I>, according to the custom of the Chaldee<\/I>,) to treasure up<\/I>, and bar, pure<\/I>. Those who kept the current coin, or were over the mint<\/I> the treasurers of the exchequer in Babylon.<\/P>

<\/P>

The COUNSELLORS<\/B><\/I>] dethaberaiya<\/I>, from dath<\/I>, a statute<\/I>, and bar<\/I>, “to declare the meaning of the law;” for in all ages and countries there has been what is termed the glorious<\/I> uncertainty of the law<\/I>; and therefore there must be a class of men whose business it is to explain it. What a pity that law cannot be tendered to the people as other sciences are, in plain, unsophisticated, and intelligible terms, and by persons whose business it is to show what is just<\/I> and right<\/I>, and not pervert truth, righteousness<\/I>, and judgment<\/I>.<\/P>

<\/P>

The SHERIFFS<\/B><\/I>] <\/I> tiphtaye, from taphath<\/I>, in Hebrew, shaphath<\/I>, “to set in order.” Probably civil magistrates.<\/P>

<\/P>

And all the rulers of the provinces<\/B><\/I>] All other state or civil officers, not only to grace the solemnity, but to maintain order. My old Bible renders them: Satrapis, or wiise men. Magistratis.<\/I> Jugis. Duykis, Tyrauntis, or stronge men. Prefectis, and alle the<\/I> Princes of Cuntreese.<\/I><\/P>

<\/p>\n

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

This great statue, whether Nebuchadnezzars own, or Bel, or any other of his gods, see Dan 3:14<\/span>, must be solemnly dedicated, and therefore all the peers of the realm are called to it; but whether these ranks of men and officers are truly rendered from the Chaldee words is hard to determine, and not worth disputing; etymologists differ in it: this only is material, that the heads of all that vast empire were summoned, of several nations and languages, to testify their conformity to the emperors will, and thereby give assurance of obliging the people under them to the same obedience, i.e. to the same idolatrous worship. <\/P>

It was the manner of the heathen to consecrate their idol before they worshipped it, and herein, as in many other, Satan imitated the Jews, and their temple dedication, Joh 10:22<\/span>; they held a feast. The popish church do the like, when they dedicate material temples to particular saints, with solemnity and jollity, from whence come the feasts of wakes and revels to this day. <\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

2. princes<\/B>“satraps”of provinces [GESENIUS]. <\/P>

captains<\/B>rulers,<\/I>not exclusively military. <\/P>

sheriffs<\/B>men learned inthe law, like the Arab mufti<\/I> [GESENIUS].<\/P><\/p>\n

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Then Nebuchadnezzar the king sent to gather together the princes<\/strong>,…. He sent letters, or dispatched messengers, into the several provinces of his empire, and parts of his dominions, to convene all the peers of his realm, and governors of provinces, and all officers, civil, military, and religious, expressed by various names and titles:<\/p>\n

the governors, and the captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces<\/strong>; who are particularly and distinctly designed is not easy to say. Jacchiades thinks they answer to the same offices and officers which now obtain in the Turkish empire; princes are the “bashaws”; governors the “beglerbegs”; captains the “agas” of the janizaries; judges the “kadies”; treasurers the “dephterdaries”; the counsellors the “alphakies”; and “zayties the sheriffs”; their chief doctors their “muphties”, as L’Empereur; and the rulers of the provinces the “zangiakies” or “viziers”; but, be they who they will, they were the principal men of the empire, both in things civil, military, and ecclesiastic, who were ordered<\/p>\n

to come to the dedication of the image, which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up<\/strong>; for though it was made and set up, it was not a proper object of worship till dedicated; and which was done by burning incense, blowing trumpets, c. now these great men were gathered together on this occasion, because of the greater honour done hereby to the king and his image and also by their example to engage the populace the more easily to the worship of it; and likewise as being the representatives of them since they could not all be collected together in one place; and it may be it was done, as some think, to ensnare Daniel and his companions. Philostratus f makes mention of an officer at Babylon that had the keeping of the great gate into the city; which some take to be the same with the first sort here mentioned; who first offered the golden statue of the king to be worshipped before he would permit any to enter into the city, which perhaps might take its rise from the worship of this golden image.<\/p>\n

f De Vita Apollonii, l. 1. c. 19.<\/p>\n

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

I do not know the derivation of the word “ Satra p;” but manifestly all these are names of magistracies, and I allow myself to translate the words freely, since they are not Hebrew, and the Jews are equally ignorant of their origin. Some of them, indeed, appear too subtle; but they assert nothing but what is frivolous and foolish. We must be content with the simple expression — he sent to collect the satraps <\/p>\n

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

(2) Sent<\/strong>i.e.,<\/em> sent heralds, as appears from Dan. 3:4<\/span>. (On the Babylonian officers, see Exc.<\/em> A.)<\/p>\n

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

2<\/strong>. <\/strong> “Then Nebuchadnezzar the king sent to gather together the satraps, the deputies, and the governors, the judges [ chief soothsayers, <\/em> margin], the treasurers, the counselors, the sheriffs [ lawyers, <\/em> margin], and all the rulers of the provinces” (R.V.). Noldeke and others have recognized most of these as Persian official titles. This would not of itself prove the late origin of the book, as in referring to ancient dignitaries it is natural, instead of retaining the ancient term, to substitute for it a modern title which corresponds as nearly as possible to the old one, as is vividly illustrated in every translation; for example, when Wyclif names these officials “magistratis, jugis, duykis,” and the “herald” of Dan 3:4<\/span> “a bedel.” As Prince says, it is difficult to distinguish between these various officials; and it is hardly necessary to do so, as they are probably grouped together for the sake of the local coloring and need not be a complete list of all the provincial officers. The names as given in Dan 3:3<\/span> are not in every case exactly the same or in the same order. The new discoveries have thrown some light upon the formerly unknown functions of certain of these officials, the “counselors,” for example, mentioned here appearing in a multitude of texts of the fifth century B.C. as well-known officers stationed all over the fertile plain between the lower Euphrates and the Tigris to gather the taxes and look after the interests of the government. These officials are called da-a-ta-ba-ra <\/em> or da-ta-bar-ri, <\/em> corresponding exactly to the term used in Daniel ( dettrabarim<\/em>) the meaning of which has never before been understood (see Hilprecht, Babylonian Expedition, <\/em> 1898, ix, pp. 8, 28).<\/p>\n

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

‘Then Nebuchadnezzar the king sent to gather together the satraps, the deputies, 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.’<\/p>\n

Having made his grand gesture Nebuchadnezzar wanted it to be admired. And he was determined on a show of loyalty. Such dedication rites were customary in antiquity, and this is in keeping with what we know of ancient Babylonian rites.<\/p>\n

‘Satraps’ is an Old Persian word signifying ‘kingdom-guardian’, ‘deputies’ and ‘governors’ were Semitic, but such loan words were common (and when he wrote Daniel was in a Persian environment). The order of the titles probably indicates their grades.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

We have here the prosecution of this impious design. Reader! would it be believed, if fact had not proved it so, that men possessing reason, should fall down to so ridiculous a figure, as a lifeless, helpless, unconscious mass of metal? To be sure, it must have been an enormous figure, threescore cubits! whereas a man six feet, is but four cubits, and this image therefore must have been ninety feet. But what of that: its enormity only served to make it more contemptible.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Dan 3:2 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.<\/p>\n

Ver. 2. Then Nebuchadnezzar the king sent to gather together the princes.<\/strong> ] Satrapas,<\/em> not so called quia sat rapiant,<\/em> as Lyra doateth; for it is a Persian word signifying such as were near the king’s person. Superstition first looks to wind in great ones. Ezr 8:11 The Vulgate are “carried away to dumb idols, like as they are led.” 1Co 12:2 They are sheepish, and will follow a leader as well into a penfold as a pasture; they also feed most greedily on the grass that will rot them.<\/p>\n

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

the king sent. This great Durbar would hardly have taken place till after the campaign referred to in note on “came” (Dan 1:1). It was therefore probably held about 475 B. C, in Daniel’s thirty-eighth year, twenty years after Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of himself, the “head of gold” (Dan 2). <\/p>\n

to gather together, &c. Note the eight technical terms. Well known to Daniel, but difficult for a Jew in Jer 300 years later to enumerate so minutely and so accurately. <\/p>\n

princes = satraps. <\/p>\n

governors. See note on Dan 2:48. <\/p>\n

captains = pashas (as in Neh 5:14, Neh 5:18. Hag 1:14), the first three being governmental. <\/p>\n

judges = viziers, or chief judges. <\/p>\n

treasurers: these two being courtiers. <\/p>\n

counsellors = counsellors of State, judges. The same word as in Dan 3:3. Not the same word as in verses: Dan 3:24, Dan 3:27. <\/p>\n

sheriffs = lawyers; these two being legal. <\/p>\n

rulers, &c. = superintendents, being functional and general. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Dan 3:2<\/p>\n

Dan 3:2 Then NebuchadnezzarH5020 the kingH4430 sentH7972 to gather togetherH3673 the princes,H324 the governors,H5460 and the captains,H6347 the judges,H148 the treasurers,H1411 the counsellors,H1884 the sheriffs,H8614 and allH3606 the rulersH7984 of the provinces,H4083 to comeH858 to the dedicationH2597 of the imageH6755 whichH1768 NebuchadnezzarH5020 the kingH4430 had set up.H6966 <\/p>\n

Dan 3:2 <\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Nebuchadnezzar was proud of his statue and he wanted to dedicate it in the presence of all his government officials. These officials probably made the journey from all over Babylonia to be there for this event. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

sent: Exo 32:4-6, Num 25:2, Jdg 16:23, 1Ki 12:32, Pro 29:12, Rev 17:2 <\/p>\n

Reciprocal: Est 1:3 – the nobles Est 9:3 – the rulers Jer 51:44 – the nations Dan 3:24 – counsellors Dan 3:27 – the princes Dan 6:7 – All Mat 20:25 – exercise dominion<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Dan 3:2. The persons referred to were (he officers of various ranks in the service of Nebuchadnezzar, and their specific work does not need to be inquired into here. It was to be expected that such individuals would be present on such an important occasion as the dedication of the huge idol.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Dan 3:2-3. Then Nebuchadnezzar sent to gather together the princes, &c. It would be very difficult, and perhaps impossible, at this distance of time, to ascertain the proper titles and offices of the several characters that are here mentioned, and certainly would answer no valuable end to any reader. It may be sufficient to observe, that it is probable only those were summoned to attend on this occasion who held places under the government. Thousands of others, no doubt, would be present, and, when present, were required to comply with the kings injunction respecting worshipping the image, though they had not been summoned. And they came and stood before the image They made their personal appearance, and showed themselves ready to perform the worship required of them.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

3:2 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 {b} dedication of the image which Nebuchadnezzar the {c} king had set up.<\/p>\n

(b) Showing that the idol is not known for an idol as long as he is with workmen: but when the ceremonies and customs are recited and used, and the consent of the people is there, then they think they have made a god out of a block.<\/p>\n

(c) This was sufficient with the wicked at all times to approve their religion, if the king’s authority were alleged for the establishment of it, not considering in the meantime what God’s word allowed.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Nebuchadnezzar summoned his officials to the image for what he probably intended to be a demonstration of loyalty to him.<\/p>\n

"The fairly recent date of the establishment of the Babylonian Empire as the successor to Assyria (at least in its southern half) made it appropriate for Nebuchadnezzar to assemble all the local and provincial leaders from every part of his domain and, in essence, exact from them a solemn oath of loyalty . . ." [Note: Archer, "Daniel," p. 51.] <\/span><\/p>\n

The religious connotations of the gathering are unclear, but it was probably not a summons to worship one idol as God. The Babylonians were a polytheistic people and worshiped many gods.<\/p>\n

"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 acknowledgment, 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." [Note: Keil, p. 124.] <\/span><\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Then Nebuchadnezzar the king sent to gather together the princes, the governors, and the captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counselors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, to come to the dedication of the image which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up. 2. princes ] satraps, Aram. ’achashdarpan, both this and the … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 3:2”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21820","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21820","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21820"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21820\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21820"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21820"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21820"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}