Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height was sixty cubits, and its width 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 local governors, the deputies, and the governors, 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. Then the local governors, the deputies, and the governors, the judges, the treasurers, the counselors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, were gathered together to the dedication of the image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up; and they stood before the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up.
Then the herald cried aloud, “To you it is commanded, peoples, nations, and languages, that whenever you hear the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp, pipe, and all kinds of music, you fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king has set up. Whoever doesn’t fall down and worship shall be cast into the middle of a burning fiery furnace the same hour.”
Therefore at that time, when all the peoples heard the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp, pipe, and all kinds of music, all the peoples, the nations, and the languages, fell down and worshiped the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up.
Therefore at that time certain Chaldeans came near, and brought accusation against the Jews. They answered Nebuchadnezzar the king, “O king, live for ever! You, O king, have made a decree, that every man that hears the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp, pipe, and all kinds of music, shall fall down and worship the golden image; and whoever doesn’t fall down and worship shall be cast into the middle of a burning fiery furnace. There are certain Jews whom you have appointed over the affairs of the province of Babylon: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. These men, O king, have not respected you. They don’t serve your gods, and don’t worship the golden image which you have set up.”
Then Nebuchadnezzar in rage and fury commanded that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego be brought. Then these men were brought before the king. Nebuchadnezzar answered them, “Is it on purpose, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, that you don’t serve my god, nor worship the golden image which I have set up? Now if you are ready whenever you hear the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp, pipe, and all kinds of music to fall down and worship the image which I have made, good; but if you don’t worship, you shall be cast the same hour into the middle of a burning fiery furnace. Who is that god that will deliver you out of my hands?”
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered the king, “Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If it happens, 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, let it be known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image which you have set up.”
Then Nebuchadnezzar was full of fury, and the form of his appearance was changed against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. He spoke, and commanded that they should heat the furnace seven times more than it was usually heated. He commanded certain mighty men who were in his army to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and to cast them into the burning fiery furnace. Then these men were bound in their pants, their tunics, and their mantles, and their other clothes, and were cast into the middle of the burning fiery furnace. Therefore because the king’s commandment was urgent, and the furnace exceedingly hot, the flame of the fire killed those men who took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. These three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell down bound into the middle of the burning fiery furnace.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21 Very probably this statue was not erected by King…
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.
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19 Under pretence of religion, and holiness in making an…
Under pretence of religion, and holiness in making an image to his idol Bel, he sought his own ambition and vain glory: and this declareth that he was not toucheth 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, and therefore he meant to bring all to one kind of religion, and so rather sought his own quietness than God’s glory.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv1–23 Dan 3:1 Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of…
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.
Read full note →
Whose height was threescore cubits.] The ordinary cubit is a foot and half; but the Babylonian cubit, saith Herodotus, was three fingers greater than the common cubit; so that this image might be sixty-seven ordinary cubits high. The Rhodian Colosse was larger yet than this; for it was fourscore cubits high, made of brass in the form of a man, standing with his two legs striding over a haven, under which ships with their sails and masts might pass. {a} The little finger of it was as large as an ordinary man, being the work of twelve years, made by Chares of Lindum, and worthily reckoned for one of the world’s seven wonders. It was afterwards sold to a Jew, who loaded nine hundred camels with the brass of it; for it had been thrown down by an earthquake. {b} This image of Nebuchadnezzar was thus great, to affect the people with wonderment - so they "wondered after the beast" {Rev 13:3} - and thus glorious, gilded at least, if not of solid gold, to perstringe their senses, and with exquisite music to draw their affections. The Papacy is in like sort an alluring, tempting, bewitching religion. Jerome compareth heresy to this golden image; Irenaeus worldly felicity, which the devil enticeth men to admire and adore.
He set it up in the plain of Dura.] In a pleasant plain, mentioned also by Ptolemy {c} the geographer, quo statua commendatior habeatur, that it might be the more regarded.
{a} Plin., lib. xxxiv, cap. 7.
{b} Theop. Pezel., Mell. Hist.
{c} Geog., lib. vi.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 This daring sin of Nebuchadnezzar was aggravated many ways,…
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.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On vv1, 8, 19 We have no certainty concerning the date of this…
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, Dan 3:1. 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 46:6), 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.
Read full note →
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, Dan 3:7. 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, Dan 3:6. 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.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv1–23 Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold,.... Not…
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:
Read full note →
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", Gen 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, Dan 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 Gen 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 Gen 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 Gen 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.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv1, 4, 16, 18, 20, 23 Nebuchadnezzar erects a golden image, and requires all his…
Nebuchadnezzar erects a golden image, and requires all his subjects to worship it, ver. 1-7. He is informed that the Jewish princes refuse to worship it, ver. 8-12. They resolutely persist in their refusal, ver. 13-18. They are cast into the fiery furnace, ver. 19-23. Their preservation and the conviction of the king, ver. 24- 27. The honour which he gave to God, and the favour he shewed to his servants, ver. 28-30.
Made an image - Perhaps he did this, that he might seem no ways 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.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23 Nebuchadnezzar, having erected an image, whose height (including
CHAPTER III
Nebuchadnezzar, having erected an image, whose height (including
Read full note →
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.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 22 Dan 3:1. Nebuchadnezzar made an image of gold —…
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.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold -…
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.
Read full note →
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 צלם tselēm - Greek εἰκόνα 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 Calmet’s “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 man’s 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 Anthon’s “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” (פתי 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 Solomon’s 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 Δεειρᾷ Deeira - “Deeira.” Jerome says that the translation of Theodotion is “Deira;” of Symmachus, Doraum; and of the Septuagint. περίβολον 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.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 5, 8, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 Statue. It was the figure of a man, (Calmet)…
Statue. It was the figure of a man, (Calmet) the dimensions 90 feet high and 9 broad (Worthington) being disproportionate; though a man might be represented on the pillar. Some take it for Nabolpolassar, (Calmet) or for the king himself. (St. Jerome) (Worthington) --- But he never complains of the injury shewn to his own person, and therefore it probably was meant for Bel, the chief god. (Chap. iv. 5. and xiv. 1.) This nation adored statues. (Baruch vi. 3.) The Persians worshipped only the elements. (Calmet) --- Ochus first set up the statue of the goddess Tanais or Anais. (Clem. Protr.) --- Dura. Septuagint: "enclosed." (St. Jerome) --- This happened towards the end of the king’s reign, (ver. 98, &c.) of course the three young men might be about fifty years old. (Calmet)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v1 3. The test of the faith of Daniel’s three…
3. The test of the faith of Daniel’s three friends in the fiery furnace.
Dan_3:1-30
Read full note →
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 Chaldæans [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 king’s 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 king’s 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 king’s 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” (עֲבַד), 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 ἔτους ὀκτωκαιδεκάτου Ναβουχοδόνοσορ, hence at about the time of the destruction of Jerusalem (cf. 2Ki_25:8; Jer_52:12), and after the accomplished subjection to Chaldæa 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 Nebuchadnezzar’s 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 Jehovah’s power and greatness which he had formerly received in consequence of Daniel’s 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. צְלֵם 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 צְלֵם 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 Amyclæan Apollo, which formed, according to Pausanius (Lacon. III. 19, 2), a slender column provided with head, arms, and feet, in the human form. So Münter, 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 κολλοσσοὶ μεγάλοι and ἀνδρόσφογγες 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 Amyclæ. [“צְלֵם is properly an image in human likeness, and excludes the idea of a mere pillar or obelisk, for which מַצֵּבָה would have been the appropriate word. Yet … as to the upper part—the head, countenance, arms, breast—it 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 Wilkinson’s Manners and customs of the ancient Egyptians, and Layard’s 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 צְלֵם 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 Erfüllung, I. 277), Zündel, 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 heathenism—as indicated (according to Kliefoth) particularly by the numbers six and sixty.—The expression דּי־דְהַב 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 מִזְבַּה־ הַזָּהָב; 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., Lücke. etc.; Theol. Zeitschr., 1822,III, p. 259; cf. Einl. ins A. T., § 265), an imaginary prototype of the βδέλυγμα ἑρημώσεως of Antiochus Epiphanes, which was assigned by pseudo-Daniel to the æra of the captivity; for according to 1Ma_1:54; 1Ma_1:59, this βδέλ. 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. פְּתָי, properly “breadth,” but here signifying both breadth and thickness, cf. Eze_6:3. The cubits (אַמִּין.) were probably the royal cubits of the Babylonians (Herod. 1:178), and not smaller than the ordinary cubits (Gesen., Thesaur., p. 112s.). Instead of πήχεων ἐξήχοντα as a statement of the height, the Septuagint has πήχεων ἑξ, 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 Hävernick on this passage.—He set it up (caused it to be set up) in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon. בִּקְעָא, 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 Δοῦρα (otherwise Dor) near Cæsarea Palæst. 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 (Expédit. Scientifique en Mésopotamie, 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 obliquée), 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 דּיּרָא to be an appellative, and rendered it by ἐν πεδἱῳ τοῦ περιβόλου (cf. דּוּר, 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, טוּרא.
Dan_3:2. Then Nebuchadnezzar the king sent to gather together, etc. This service was probably performed by couriers (רצים, 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 וּ before פַּחֲוָתָא. 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 אַחַשֶׁדַּרְפְּנִין were naturally satraps (cf. kshatrapâwan on the cuneiform inscriptions at Behitun, which, according to Haug [in Ewald’s Bibl. Jahrb., 5:153] is equivalent to “protector of the country,” and according to Lassen [Zeitschr. für Kunde des Morgenl., VI. 1, 18] is f synonymous with “guardian of the warriors of the host;” cf. also the Zend shôithrapaiti and the Sanscr. kshathrapa)—the superior executive officers of the several provinces, vice or sub-kings to the sovereign (cf. the מַלְכִין, Isa_10:8; Gen_14:1-2, with the מֶלֶךְ מַלְכַיָּא, 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 Achæmenidian 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 τεταγμένος σατράπης 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 אהשׁדרפנין must be regarded rather, as one of the Persian elements of the writer’s 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 Chaldæans, is no more remarkable than is the mention of the רַב־מָג, Jer_39:3, as a Chaldæan officer. The Septuagint, however, renders the term by σατράπαι only here and in Dan_6:2; Dan_6:4, while in Dan_3:3; Dan_3:27 it has ὔπατοι, in Ezr_8:36 διοικηταί, in Est_8:9 οἰκονόμοι, and in Est_9:3 τύραννοι, 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 סִגְנִין 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 סְגָנִים of Babylon, mentioned together with the גִּבּוֹרִים, Jer_51:57). The Septuagint appears to have conceived of these Signin, in harmony with this view, as being “præfects of the host, or commanders of the provinces;” for they render the term in this instance by στρατηγοί (as in Dan_3:3 and often, twelve times in all), while they translate it elsewhere by τοπάρχαι (Dan_3:27), ἡγούμενοι (Dan_2:48), or ἄρχοντες.—(3) פַּהֲוָתָא (Heb. פַּחוֹת from פֶּחָה), 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 præfects. 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), Chaldæans (Ezek. 26:6, 23; Jer_51:23) and Persians (Est_8:9; Est_9:3); and especially the Persian governors of Judæa 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 præfects of provinces, the פֶּחָה 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 פַּחוֹת 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 τοπάρχαι; in Dan_3:27, ἀρχιπατριῶται (i.e., chief of a nationality).—(4)According to the Sept. the אֲדַרְגָּזְרַיָּא are “overseers” generally (ὑπατοι), 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 אֶדֶר, glory, dignity, and גִּזַר. 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 אֲדַרְגָּזְרַיָּא,—(5) גְּדָבְרַיָּא. “the treasurers.” These officers do not probably differ from the גִּזַּבְרִין, Ezr_7:21 (cf. Dan_1:8), which term signifies γαζοφύλακες, “managers of the public treasury” (cf. Sept. διοικηταί, and is possibly related to the Pers. gaitha, modern Pets, genj, “treasure” (cf. gaza). Ewald’s assertion that גְּדָבַר is synonymous with הֲדָבַר, Dan_3:24; Dan_3:27, and signifies a “bearer of power,” or “exalted prince of the empire” (analogous to the old-Pers. chudvâr, from chad, “God, authorization”), is without adequate support.—(6) The דְּתָבְרַיָּא are clearly the “learned in the law,” or the “guardians of the law.” The first element of the word is evidently דָּת, “the law” (cf. Pers. data, from da,. “to give”), to which the Pers. ending vâr is annexed. Cf. the Pehlvi word datouber (Armen. datavor), “judges.”—(7) The unmistakable connection of תִּפְתָּיֵּא (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 “præfecti” as the Vulgate has it, or “οἱ ἐπʼ ἐξουσιῶν”, 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 שִׁלְטוֹן, “ruler, high official,” cf. Ecc_8:4, and also the verb אשלט, Dan_2:48. The præfect 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 כֹּל 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. חֲוֻכָה, 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 קימין instead of קָאמִין, as it substitutes דָּיְרִין for דָּארִין in Dan_2:38, according to the usage of the Targums.— לָקְבֵל, “before, opposite,” which is employed here and in Ezr_4:16, instead of the usual Chaldee form לָקְבֵל (Dan_5:1; Dan_5:4; Dan_5:10; Ezr_6:13), is a Syriasm in the pronunciation, similar to that in וּצְֽרִר. Gen_37:25, which is used instead of וּצְָרִי
Dan_3:4. Then a herald cried aloud. כָּרוֹז and the corresponding verb כְּרַז “to proclaim publicly” (Dan_3:29), are not exactly Aramaic adaptations of the Greek terms κῆρυξ, κηρύττειν (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 קרא “to call.”— בְּחַיִל, mightily, with a loud voice, as in Dan_4:11; Dan_5:7, and as in the Heb. בַכֹהַ, Psa_29:4; Isa_40:9.—To you it is commanded, O people, nations, and languages. אָמְרִין, 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 עַמְמַיָּא (“peoples, nations”), אֻמַָּיּא (“tribes,” a more limited conception than the preceding; cf. also in the Heb., e.g. Psa_111:6 with Gen_25:16), and לִשָּׁנַיָּא (“tongues,” “peoples having a common language;” cf. the Heb. לָשׁוֹן 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 Chaldæan 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. אֻמַּיָּא denotes tribes of people, as the Hebr. אֻמּוֹת ,אֻמָּה, 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 עַמִּין, peoples. לִשָּׁנַיָּא, corresponding to הַלְּשֹׁנוֹת, 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 χορεύειν 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 generis—laudes 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. [“קַרְנָא, horn, is the tuba of the ancients, the קֶרֶן or שׁוֹפָר of the Hebr.; see Jos_6:5. מַשְׁרוֹקִיתָא, from שָׁרַק, to hiss or whistle, is the reed-flute, translated by the Sept. and Theodotion σύριγξ the shepherd’s or Pan’s 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 קיתרס, which is to be pronounced either as קִיתְרֹס, or קִירָרס, the Keri has the shortened form קִתרֹס which appears to have been in general use in later times. The Syriac affords repeated examples of the conversion of the Greek ending ιζ into וֹס (Gesen. Thes., p. 1215), so that in this direction the derivation of the term from the Gr. κίθαρις seems certainly to be secured. However, see the Introd., as above.—(2) The σαμβύκη, 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 סַבְכָּא, however, appears rather to point to the Shemitic root סבךְ, “to weave.”—(3) The orthography of פְּסַנְתְּרִין is not fixed; in Dan_3:7 the name is written with ט instead of ת, and in Dan_3:10; Dan_3:15 it is pointed with—under תּ. The numerous changes of the Greek ending ιον into ין— which are found in the later Chaldee, and of which סַנְהֶדְרִין=συνέδριον is the most familiar (Gesen. Thesaur., p. 1116), indicate the identity of this instrument with the ψαληριον, [“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 סִיפֹנְיָה instead of סוּמְפּוֹנְיָה; a form which points back no less certainly than does(the more usual term, to the Greek συμφωνια, since the sound υ is intermediate between וּ and י— 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 συμφωνία (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 below—the 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 עוּגָב, “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 Hävernick from סוּף, “a reed;” that by Paulus from סְפִינָה, “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.] זְמָרָא does not designate either instrumental music or “song” (Hitz.) as distinct from each other, but music in general; cf. the Sept. and Theodotion: καὶ παντὸς γένους μουσικῶν. 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 Asshur’s 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 Lengerke’s 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 nation’s 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. מָן־דִּי, quicunque, synonymous with מָח־דִּי, Dan_2:28 (cf. Dan_3:11; Dan_4:14)— בַּהּ־שַׁעְתָּא, 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. בֵּהּ בְּלֵילְיָא 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.] שָׁעָח, 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. רָגַע). 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 שָׁעָה “to see;” the root from which it is derived signifies in the Arabic “celeriter ire, currere.”—אַתּוּן ,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. אַתּוֹן, and by the originally synonymous, but not essentially related Heb. תַּנּוּר. 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 (מַלְבּן) 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 תְּרַע 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. 1671–7) 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 נוּרָא יָקִידְתָּא, “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. [“בֵּהּזִמְנָא, (cf. also Dan_3:8) is interchanged with בְּעִדָּנָא, at the time (Dan_3:5; Dan_3:15); but it is to be distinguished from בַּהּ־שַׁעְתָּא, at the same moment, Dan_3:6; Dan_3:15, for שָׁעָא, or שָׁעָח, 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 סוּמְפֹּנְיָּא 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 פסנטריו with ט instead of ת 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 Chaldæans 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 Jews”—a 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 “Chaldæan men” that the malicious informers were not specifically Chaldæan priests or wise men (this would have been indicated by פּשְׂדִּין merely, cf. Dan_2:2), but people generally, who were of Chaldæan descent. [“That which was odious in their report was, that they used the 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), 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, אִלֵּךְ “these,” is peculiar to the Biblical Chaldee of Daniel and Ezra, and is not found in the Targums, which have אִלֵּין or אֵלֶּה 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 clauses—a relation that is again brought out in the parallel Dan_3:18 (and possibly in Dan_3:14; see on the passage)—the Kethib לֵאלָהָיךְ “thy gods.” must be preferred to the Keri לֵאלָהָךְ “thy god;” which has been the case accordingly, in Theodotion and the Vulgate. Compare, although it is superfluous, Dan_3:28 b, where לְכָל־ אֱלָהּ shows clearly that a number of gods were in question. [“The Chaldæans 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 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 Chaldæans? 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, Hävernick, 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. בִּרְגַז וַחֲמָא The use of the synonymous terms expresses the violence of the king’s rage. The Inf. Aphel לְהַ־ְףָרָה “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.” הֵיתָיוּ 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., Hävernick, 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 הֵיתִי the fem. חֵיתַית (Dan_6:18), while the regular participle with a passive signification would be מֵיתַי and the active partic. Aphel מֵיתֵי (cf. Hitzig and Kranichfeld on this passage).
Dan_3:14. Of purpose (marg.), O Shadrach … do ye not serve my god? The plural לֵאלָהַי “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—הַצְדָא literally, “Was it design?”—a combination of the interrogative הֲ with צְדָא, 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 צְדִיָּה (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 חַצְדָא is therefore to be retained, and the departures from it must be rejected; e.g., the rendering of Hävernick (“Is it because ye mock, or despise my gods, that ye do not worship them?”), and by Fürst and Kranichfeld (who conceive הצדא as an adverbial Aphel noun, from צְדַא, 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.—כְּעַו, at the beginning of the sentence, corresponds to the Heb. וְעַתָּה; 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 βασιλεῦ, “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 נְבוּכ׳. 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 לְמַלְכָּא, the direct address by name, on the other hand, conveys an emphasis and solemnity that fully comport with the situation. The vocative מַלְכָּא 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 אְנַחְנָא, as appears from the words הֵי אִיתַי אְֵלָהָנָא 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 הַשְׁחִיי cf. Dan_4:16; Dan_5:25. The root חֲשַׁח 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. חַשְׁחוּת “need,” Ezr_7:20), or of standing in need of (as in this place).—עַל־דְּנָה, “upon this,” is connected with the following פתגם, by the Sept., Theodotion, Vulgate, Hävernick, etc.: “to answer thee upon this word (or matter);” but in that case פתגם must be in the Stat, emphaticus, despite the preceding demonstrative; cf. Dan_4:15; Dan_2:32; Ezr_6:11.—פרּגם 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, πρός) 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 חֲתִיב, “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.” חֵן is not the Heb. הֵן or חִנֵּה, and cannot be rendered by ecce enim, with the Vulgate, nor by a causal γάρ, with the Sept. It corresponds rather, as always in Daniel, to the Heb. אִם, “if,” and is here, as in Dan_3:15, in contrast with a חֵו לָא (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 מִף־אַתּוּן. יָכִל, “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 Jehovah’s 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 God—can 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 אֶשְׁתַּנִּו is conformed to the Genit. אַנְפּוֹהִי. while the Keri אֶשְׁתַּנִי agrees with the Nom. sing. צְלֵם. 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 חֲזִי, passive part. of חזה, “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 לְ, 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 (παῤ ὃ ἔδει, Sept). [The sense thus yielded, however, is more inept than the other, and the impersonal construction of the former verb (חזה), together with the active form of the latter (למזיהּ), 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. Kranichfeld’s 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” (Hävernick, etc.)
Dan_3:20. And he commanded the most mighty men … in his army. בְּחַיְלֵהּ must not be limited to the life or body guards, against which view the comprehensive and indefinite signification of the term חיל 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. לְמִרְמֵא is subordinated to the first, לְכַפַּתם, 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 וּלְבוּשֵׁיהךֹן, “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 סַרְבָּלִין 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 סַרְבֵּל, texit, operuit. It occurs in the Syriac and the Talmuds, with the signification of pallium (hence “mantles”—Luther, 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 Hävernick, 5. Lengerke, and Hitzig, identify סַרְבֵּל with the Pers. shalwár, Chald. שַׁרְוָל, 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 σαράβαρα by τὰ περὶ τὰς κνημῖδας ἐνδύματα, βρακία, σκελεαί). But the Pers. shalwâr 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 sáravâro, “covering for the head” (from sára, “head,” and vri, “to cover”) in either sound or signification. The Greek σαράβαρα (Mid. Age saraballa), in the sense of “hosen,” seems, on the other hand, to owe this interpretation to the Arabic sarawîl “a covering for the thighs,” and also to the Pers. shalvár; but this sense was not attributed to it by the earliest Greek translators. Theodotion, indeed, renders סַרְבָּלין by σαράβαρα, but reserves the interpretation by “hosen” for the third garment, כַּרְבְּלָן, which he translates περικνημῖδες; while the Sept. (and Aquila) evidently failed to comprehend the meaning of סרבלין, since it renders it in this place by ὑποδήματα, but adopts σαράβαρα in Dan_3:27. Upon the whole, the first named garment in this passage is probably identical with the κιθὼν ποδηνεκὴς λίνεος, which Herodotus (i. 195) describes as the innermost garment worn by the Babylonians.—(2) The פַּשִישִׁין, or, as the Keri prefers, פַּטְשִׁין, were not “hammers,” of course, although the root פטשׁ, “to spread, extend” (cf. פשט, “to spread out”), is probably the same from which פַּטִּישׁ, “a hammer,” is derived; cf. the Gr. πατάσσω, “to strike.” According to the Hebrew translator of the Chaldee sections of Daniel, פְּטִישׁ in this place corresponds to the Heb. כֻּתֹכֶת, and therefore designates a wider and more flowing under-garment than the סַרְבָּל, which answers to the second, woolen tunic (εἰρίνεος κιθών), 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. πέτασος, “a hat, covering for the head” (Bertholdt), is entirely too far-fetched, since πέτασος was used by the Greeks exclusively to designate the head-covering of the ἔφηβοι, 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 טְבּוּלִים). The same reference of פְּטִישׁ back to πέτασος seems to underlie the τιάραις, by which the Sept., Theodotion, and Theodoret render the word in this passage.—(3) The כַּרְבְּלָא appears to have been the third Babylonian garment mentioned by Herodotus, the χλανίδιον λευκόν, which was worn over the two κιθῶνες; for this word is based on the quadril. verb כִּרְבֵּל, “to gird, wind about,” which is also found in the later Hebrew, cf. 1Ch_15:27, מְכֻרְבָּל בִּמְעִיל בּוּע. [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 garment—a 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, mantles”—a 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 king’s command was urgent, or furious. “Because” (כָּל קְבֵל דְּנָח) refers to what has preceded, and the clause מִן־דִּי וגו׳ (=Heb. מֵאֲשֶׁר, “therefore”) points out this reference more fully; “because” is therefore equivalent to “namely because,” and the וְ before אַתּוּנָא expresses the consequence: “and because in consequence the furnace was in the mean time exceedingly heated up.” With regard to מַחְצְפָח “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 3:46–50), 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 מִכַפְּסִין, bound, Dan_3:23, which, moreover, is purposely placed at the close of the passage to prepare for the contrast שְׁרִין, 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” (προσευχὴ Αζαρίου καὶ ὺμνος τῶν τριῶν), which is broken by a shorter narrative section (Daniel 3:46–50, 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 חַדָּֽנְרִין are councillors of state or ministers, consiliarii, socii in judicio (Sept. φίλοι; Theodot. μελιστᾶνες; Vulg. and Syr. optimates). The word is scarcely the Chaldee דָּֽבְרִין, “leaders,” with the prefixed Hebrew article ה which in this instance, like the Arabic article in “Alcoran,” “Almanac,” has become inseparably united to the word (Gesenius); but the ח, 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 בָּר is, without doubt, the Pers. vâr, “possessor, owner,” as in דְּרָבְרִין and נְּדָבְרִין, Dan_3:2. In regard to Ewald’s attempt to identify the terms הֲדָבַר and גְּדָבַר 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. מַהְלְכִין is a regular part. Aphel, as in Dan_4:34; Cf. the Chaldaizing מַחְלְכִים 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” בַּר־אֱלָהִין, of plural אלהין 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. Kranichfeld’s hypothesis that the king employed the term “angel” (מלאךְ) 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 gods—for 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 בַּר־אֱלָחִין of this verse by ἄγγελος θεοῦ, and thus avoids all reference to heathen conceptions.
Dan_3:26. Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace. On תְּרַע, see on Dan_3:6—Ye 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. אְָלָהּ אֱלָהִין, Dan_2:47; also the Gr. ῦψιστος θεός, as applied to Zeus by Pindar, Nem. Dan 1:90.—אֱלָא עִלָּיָא corresponds exactly to the Hebrew אֵל עֶלְיוֹן, Gen_14:18. Instead of עִלָּיָּא the Keri has עַלָּאָח in this place, Dan_4:14, and nine times elsewhere in the book—substituting 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 גּוּשְׁמָא, a fuller form, and analogous to the Syriac, for the נֶּשָׁם, גִּשְׁמָא, “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” (בְּהוֹן) 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 king’s word; rather, “and transgressed the king’s command.” The וּ before מִלַּת is illative: “and in consequence,” or, “and by reason of their trust, they transgressed the king’s command;” Cf. supra on Dan_3:22. שְׁנָא מִלַּת מַלְכָּא is, literally, “to change the word of the king, to alter it (criminally).” The same idiom occurs in Ezr_6:11; cf. חַלֹף חק, Isa_24:5.—And yielded their bodies; Cf. Act_15:26 : ἀνθρώποις παραδεδωκόι τὰς ψυχὰς αὐτῶν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ κυρίου
Dan_3:29. Therefore, I make a decree; literally, “And by me is issued a decree.” שִׂים טְעֵם 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 שְׁנָא מלת מ׳), 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 Chaldæns or Persians (cf. also Kranichfeld on this passage).—Which speak anything amiss against the God of Shadrach, etc. The Kethib שָׁלָה, a Hebraized form for שָׁלָא is not to be changed, with Hitzig, into שֵׁלָה (= שְׁאֵלָה = דָּבָר “anything whatever”), nor to be replaced by the Keri שָׁלוּ, which is used in the Kethib of Dan_6:5; Ezr_4:22; Ezr_6:9. שָׁלָח, “a fault, single error, offence,” “is rather a concrete term, which is related to the abstract שָׁלוּ, “error,” precisely as the Heb. כְּלִמָּח, “a disgraceful thing,” is to כְּלִמוּת (Jer_23:40), “disgrace.” or the Chaldee מַלְכָּה (Dan_5:12) to מַלְכוּ, 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 כִּדְנָה = οῦτως, 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. חַצְלַח is not intransitive, as in Daniel 6:29, but has a transitive signification, “to bless,” and is accompanied by לְ 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 præfects.” The sounding list of official titles, “satraps, governors, præfects, 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 latter—is 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 Chaldæans” (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. 2–5 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 Asmonæan 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 Chaldæan 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 indicated—to which must be added the extreme contrast between the golden image on the plain of Dura, and the βδέλυγμα ἐρημώσεως 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 execution—all 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 Maccabæan 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 3:46–50 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 Maccabæan 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 Jehovah’s 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 Maccabæan 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 lion’s 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 lion’s den, he refers to his three companions with the words, they “quenched the violence of fire” (ἔσβεσαν δύναμν πυρός). 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 πιστεὐσαντες ἐσώθησαν ἐκ φλογός,—a primitive attestation of the fact, with which, as has been indicated in a former connection, the assumption of its invention in the Asmonæan 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, Irenæus, 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: “Cœterum in typo prœfigurat iste angelus sive ‘filius Dei’ Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, qui ad fornacem descendit inferni, in quo causœ peccatorum et justorum animœ 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 humanœ cœcitatis et audaciœ 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 vitœ nostrœ;” 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 pœna impiorum, prœsertim 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 men’s 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 prœcipuum Ecclesiœ), 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 king’s 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].
______________
4. The royal report concerning Nebuchadnezzar’s dream relating to his unfitness to govern, and its fulfillment
Daniel 3:31–4:34 [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 Chaldæans, 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 man’s [mankind], and let a beast’s 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 grâss [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 king’s 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 3:31–33 [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 3:31–33 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 king’s habits of thought and the range of his conception in the framing of an official document to be published in the royal name—otherwise 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, Hävernick, 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 (Hävernick; 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. יִשְׁגֵּא corresponds exactly to πληθυνθείη 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.”—וְתִמְהַיָּא אָתַיָּא, in the Heb. trans., אוֹתוֹת וְנוֹרָאוֹת; Cf. the well-known similar combination וּמוֹפְתִים אוֹתוֹת, Isa_8:18 (Greek σημεῖα και τέρατα). The somewhat indefinite and general term אַת, “a sign, token,” receives the special signification of “miraculous sign” (portentum) from its combination with תְּמַה, “a wonder, wonderful thing.” The same combination occurs in Dan 3:33 [Dan_4:3], and also in Dan_6:28.—שְׁפַר קֳדָמַי, 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. כְּמָה, quantopere, a strengthening of the simple כְּ, 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 Jehovah—a 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.Prœfects,Governmental,Districts. Pashas. Metropolis. Viziers, Executive.II.Treasurers.Courtly,Financial. Judges,Legal,On the bench.III.Lawyers, At the barIV.—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,WindSimple. Flute. Keyed. Guitar, II.Lyre,String,Gradually more complex. Harp. III. —Bagpipe.—Wind—Compound.
IV —All sorts.—General.]
[4][אֲכַלוּ קרְצֵיהוֹן דּי, 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 fire—bound?” This last was an additional circumstance of wonder.
[7]— יַצִּיבָא, 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]—שַׁנִּיו 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]—שָׁלָה Keri שָׁלוּ something astray, an error or wrong word, i.e., detraction.
[11]בַּיְתֵהּ 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, Zündel, 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 book—an 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]וִידַחַּלִנַּנִי is the fut. Pael, with נ epenthelic, as usual in these forms. The tense seems to express the continued effect on the speaker’s 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]אִוְבֵּהּ from אֵב 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 כְּעָן is emphatic = At this time, in contrast with his former impiety.]
[33][The author’s 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 Chaldæan 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 Belshazzar’s 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 Maccabæan age, is amply refuted by Stuart and Keil (see likewise our author’s apologetical remarks [No. 3] appended to this chapter). These writers both adduce, as corroboration of the account of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness, the statement of Abydenus in the fragments preserved by Eusebius (Prœp. Evang., ix. 42, and Chron. Armen., ed. Aucher, I. p. 59), that the Chaldæan monarch was seized with a preternatural frenzy (κατασχεθείη θεῶὅτεω δή. … θεοπίσαι) while walking on the top of his royal tower at Babylon.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23 princes--"satraps" of provinces [GESENIUS].
princes--"satraps" of provinces [GESENIUS].
captains--rulers, not exclusively military.
Read full note →
sheriffs--men learned in the law, like the Arab mufti [GESENIUS].
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22 1. Kuenen (Onderzoek, ii, N. 487), following Reuss (La…
1. Kuenen (Onderzoek, ii, N. 487), following Reuss (La Bible, 1879) 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.
Read full note →
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.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 1. Nebuchadnezzar] Sept., Theod., Pesh. prefix ‘In the eighteenth…
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 (διοικῶν) 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 ṣa-lam šarrû-ti-a (šur-ba-a) ipu-uš, “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-naṣir-abal, b.c. 885–860, and Shalmaneṣer 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.
Read full note →
[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 Ḥaurân” (Bevan); see e.g. de Vogué, 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 Dûru. According to Oppert (Expéd. en Mésopotamie, 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 Ḥillah, there are a number of mounds called the Tolûl (or Mounds of) Dûra. One of these, called el-Mokhaṭṭaṭ, 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.
1–7. Nebuchadnezzar’s proclamation regarding the image.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22 (1) An image.—If this image was made after the…
(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.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22 Vers. 1-30. THE GOLDEN IMAGE, AND THE FIERY FURNACE.
Vers. 1-30. THE GOLDEN IMAGE, AND THE FIERY FURNACE.
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 ejn pediw Deeira, 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 Jeremiah 52. may be the nineteenth of 2Ki 25 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 ofJerusalem, 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 (Schrader, "Keilin-schriften," 430). While it may be outside the wall of the city, this Dura may also have been within it; the Septuagint rendering favours thistly ejn pediw peribolou, 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 view Quatremere"s that 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 ("Manuel d"Histoire Ancienne," vol. 1. p. 484, Engl. trans.), we find a number of statements of a similar kindwhich 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 gods a 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.
Read full note →
HOMILIES BY H.T. ROBJOHNS Vers. 1-13.
The ceaseless creation of gods.
the king made an image." "He set it up in the plain of Dura" (ver. 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 iteration like the refrain of a song we 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 (ver. 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.
HOMILIES BY J.D. DAVIES Ver. 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 dependence a 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 war this 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 God a desire to be rid of all doubt and perplexity, Philip asked, "Show us theFather, 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.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 12, 17, 18, 19 Nebuchadnezzar, the king, made an image of gold.
Dan_3:1
Nebuchadnezzar, the king, made an image of gold.
Read full note →
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.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On vv1, 8 SECT. XII.—THE GOLDEN IMAGE (Chap. Dan_3:1-7)
HOMILETICS
SECT. XII.—THE GOLDEN IMAGE (Chap. Dan_3:1-7)
Read full note →
Sudden conversions not always lasting ones. Mere impulses often evanescent. Men’s 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 moved—impulsive characters. Nebuchadnezzar apparently such. Liable to be suddenly and strongly moved, both to good and evil. On hearing Daniel’s description and interpretation of his dream, he felt convinced that Daniel’s 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, Nebuchadnezzar’s conversion only of this character. Time had effaced his impressions; and Daniel’s 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 Nebuchadnezzar’s 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 Nebuchadnezzar’s 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 Nebuchadnezzar’s 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 king’s 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. Nebuchadnezzar’s empire colossal, and everything must be in keeping with it. A man’s ambitious aims often grow with his success. Nebuchadnezzar’s 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. Man’s fallen nature perverts mercies into mischiefs. Sin often makes what was designed for our benefit to become our bane. God’s 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 Henry’s 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” אֲחַשְׁדַּרְפְּנַיָּא. 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” (סִגְנַיָּא, 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” (פַּחֲוָתָא 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” (אֲדַרְגָּזְרַיָּא adargoz-raiya), from אדר (adar), dignity, and גזרין (gozrin), judges; the chief judges.—Gesenius. So Wintle. Dr. Rule makes them viceroys over the provinces. (5.) The “treasurers” (גְּדָבְרַיָּא, gedobhraiya), like גִּזְבָּר (gizbar) in Ezr_1:8 and elsewhere, the sibilant ז being changed into ד; from the original Semitic גנז (ganaz), contracted into גז (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” (דְּתָבְרַיָּא dethobraiya), promulgators of the law, from דַּת (dath), law, and the Persian termination var; lawyers, judges.—Hengstenberg. So Rule, officers of the legal class; doctors or lawyers. (7.) The “sheriffs” (תִּפְתָּיֵא, 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 king’s 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 Cæsar’s, they must have also the things that are God’s. 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 prince’s 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 one—cast into a fiery furnace [92]. The penalty the flames. That furnace the prototype of the auto da fés, 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 indeed—only 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,” זְמָרָא (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,” קַרְנָא (karna), the Hebrew קֶרֶן (keren), a horn. (2.) “Flute,” מַשְׁרוֹקִיתָא (mashrokitha), the Chaldaic for a flute or pipe. The Septuagint and Theodotion: σύριγξ; Gr. Ven.: αὐλός. (3.) “Harp,” קַיתְרוֹס (kathros or kithros), which Gesenius says was received into the Semitic language from abroad, being the Greek κίθαρις or κιθάρα, 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 κίθαρις, 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,” סַבְּכָא (sabbecha), according to Hesychius, an instrument like a harp, but with only four strings. Athenæus says that the sambuca, called the Phœnician lyre, was an invention of the Syrians. Its foreign or non-Greek origin is maintained by Gesenius, and generally admitted. (5.) “Psaltery,” פְּסַנְתְּרִין (pesanteriu), according to Gesenius and others, the Greek ψαλτήριον, received into the Chaldaic language; which, however, is questioned by Hengstenberg. (6.) “Dulcimer,” סוּמְפֹּנְיָא (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 Athenæus, 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 themselves—an 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,” כְּרוֹז (c’roz), a crier, from כְּרַֽז (c’raz), 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 κηρύσσω, to proclaim as a herald, and κράζω, 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 Rosenmüller, 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 David’s 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 Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” “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.”
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Sermon Bible 1900 · Public Domain On v1 Dan 3:16-18
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.
Read full note →
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.
The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain On v13 Dan 3:13 - Dan 3:25.
Daniel
HARMLESS FIRES
Read full note →
Dan 3:13 - Dan 3:25.
The way in which the ‘Chaldeans’ describe the three recusants, betrays their motive in accusing them. ‘Certain Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon’ could not but be envied and hated, since their promotion wounded both national pride and professional jealousy. The form of the accusation was skilfully calculated to rouse a despot’s rage. ‘They have not regarded thee’ is the head and front of their offending. The inflammable temper of the king blazed up according to expectation, as is the way with tyrants. His passion of rage is twice mentioned {Dan 3:13, Dan 3:19}, and in one of the instances, is noted as distorting his features. What a picture of ungoverned fury as of one who had never been thwarted! It is the true portrait of an Eastern despot.
Where was Daniel in this hour of danger? His absence is not accounted for, and conjecture is useless; but the fact that he has no share in the incident seems to raise a presumption in favour of the disputed historical character of the Book, which, if it had been fiction, could scarcely have left its hero out of so brilliant an instance of faithfulness to Jehovah.
Nebuchadnezzar’s vehement address to the three culprits is very characteristic and instructive. Fixed determination to enforce his mandate, anger which breaks into threats that were by no means idle, and a certain wish to build a bridge for the escape of servants who had done their work well, are curiously mingled in it. His question, best rendered as in the Revised Version, ‘Is it of purpose . . . that ye’ do so and so? seems meant to suggest that they may repair their fault by pleading inadvertence, accident, or the like, and that He will accept the transparent excuse. The renewed offer of an opportunity of worship does not say what will happen should they obey; and the omission makes the clause more emphatic, as insisting on the act, and slurring over the self-evident result.
On the other hand, in the next clause the act is slightly touched {‘if ye worship not’}; and all the stress comes on the grim description of the consequence. This monarch, who has been accustomed to bend men’s wills like reeds, tries to shake these three obstinate rebels by terror, and opens the door of the furnace, as it were, to let them hear it roar. He finishes with a flash of insolence which, if not blasphemy, at least betrays his belief that he was stronger than any god of his conquered subject peoples.
But the main point to notice in this speech is the unconscious revelation of his real motive in demanding the act of worship. The crime of the three was not that they worshipped wrongly, but that they disobeyed Nebuchadnezzar. He speaks of ‘my gods’, and of the ‘image which I have set up.’ Probably it was an image of the god of the Babylonian pantheon whom he took for his special patron, and was erected in commemoration of some victorious campaign.
At all events, the worship required was an act of obedience to him, and to refuse it was rebellion. Idolatry is tolerant of any private opinions about gods, and intolerant of any refusal to obey authority in worship. So the early Christians were thrown to the lions, not because they worshipped Jesus, but because they would not sacrifice at the Emperor’s command. It is not only heathen rulers who have confounded the spheres of civil and religious obedience. Nonconformity in England was long identified with disloyalty; and in many so-called Christian countries to-day a man may think what he likes, and worship as he pleases in his chamber, if only he will decently comply with authority and pretend to unite in religious ceremonies, which those who appoint and practise them observe with tongue in cheek.
But we may draw another lesson from this truculent apostle of his god. He is not the only instance of apparent religious zeal which is at bottom nothing but masterfulness. ‘You shall worship my god, not because he is God, but because he is mine.’ That is the real meaning of a great deal which calls itself ‘zeal for the Lord.’ The zealot’s own will, opinions, fancies, are crammed down other people’s throats, and the insult in not thinking or worshipping as he does, is worse in his eyes than the offence against God.
The kind of furnace in which recusants are roasted has changed since Nebuchadnezzar’s time, and what is called persecution for religion is out of fashion now. But every advance in the application of Christian principle to social and civil life brings a real martyrdom on its advocates. Every audacious refusal to bow to the habits or opinions of the majority, is visited by consequences which only the martyr spirit will endure. Despots have no monopoly of imperious intolerance. A democracy is more cruel and more impatient of singularity, and especially of religious singularity, than any despot.
England and America have no need to fear the old forms of religious persecution. In both, a man may profess and proclaim any kind of religion or of no religion. But in both, the advance guard of the Christian Church, which seeks to apply Christ’s teachings more rigidly to individual and social life, has to face obloquy, ostracism, misrepresentation, from the world and the fossil church, for not serving their gods, nor worshipping the golden image which they have set up. Martyrs will be needed and persecutors will exist till the world is Christian.
How did the three confessors meet this rumble of thunder about their ears? The quiet determination of their reply is very striking and beautiful. It is perfectly loyal, and perfectly unshaken. ‘We have no need to answer thee’ {Revised Version}. ‘It is ill sitting at Rome and striving with the Pope.’ Nebuchadnezzar’s palace was not precisely the place to dispute with Nebuchadnezzar; and as his logic was only ‘Do as I bid you, or burn,’ the sole reply possible was, ‘We will not do as you bid, and we will burn.’ The ‘If’ which is immediately spoken is already in the minds of the speakers, when they say that they do not need to answer. They think that God will take up the taunt which ended the king’s tirade. Beautifully they are silent, and refer the blusterer to God, whose voice they believe that He will hear in His deed. ‘But Thou shalt answer, Lord, for me,’ is the true temper of humble faith, dumb before power as a sheep before her shearers, and yet confident that the meek will not be left unvindicated. Let us leave ourselves in God’s hands; and when conscience accuses, or the world maligns or threatens, let us be still, and feel that we have One to speak for us, and so we may hold our peace.
The rendering of Dan 3:17 is doubtful, but the general meaning is clear. The brave speakers have hope that God will rebuke the king’s taunt, and will prove Himself to be able to deliver out of his hand. So they repeat his very words with singular boldness, and contradict him to his face. They have no absolute certainty of deliverance, but whether it comes or not will make no manner of difference to them. They have absolute certainty as to duty; and so they look the furious tyrant right in the eyes, and quietly say, ‘We will not serve thy gods.’ Nothing like that had ever been heard in those halls.
Duty is sovereign. The obligation to resist all temptations to go against conscience is unaffected by consequences. There may be hope that God will not suffer us to be harmed, but whether He does or not should make no difference to our fixed resolve. That temper of lowly faith and inflexible faithfulness which these Hebrews showed in the supreme moment, when they took their lives in their hands, may be as nobly illustrated in the small difficulties of our peaceful lives. The same laws shape the curves of the tiny ripples in a basin and of the Atlantic rollers. No man who cannot say ‘I will not’ in the face of frowns and dangers, be they what they may, and stick to it, will do his part, He who has conquered regard for personal consequences, and does not let them deflect his course a hairsbreadth, is lord of the world.
How small Nebuchadnezzar was by the side of his three victims! How empty his threats to men who cared nothing whether they burned or not, so long as they did not apostatise! What can the world do against a man who says, ‘It is all one to me whether I live or die; I will not worship at your shrines?’ The fire of the furnace is but painted flames to such an one.
The savage punishment intended for the audacious rebels is abundantly confirmed as common in Babylon by the inscriptions, which may be seen quoted by many commentators. The narrative is exceedingly graphic. We see the furious king, with features inflamed with passion. We hear his hoarse, angry orders to heat the furnace seven times hotter, which he forgot would be a mercy, as shortening the victims’ agonies. We see the swift execution of the commands, and the unresisting martyrs bound as they stood, and dragged away by the soldiers to the near furnace, the king following. Its shape is a matter of doubt. Probably the three were thrown in from above, and so the soldiers were caught by the flames.
‘And these three men . . . fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace’ Their helplessness and desperate condition are pathetically suggested by that picture, which might well be supposed to be the last of them that mortal eyes would see. Down into the glowing mass, like chips of wood into Vesuvius, they sank. The king sitting watching, to glut his fury by the sight of their end, had some way of looking into the core of the flames.
The story shifts its point of view with very picturesque abruptness after Dan 3:23. The vaunting king shall tell what he saw, and thereby convict himself of insolent folly in challenging ‘any god’ to deliver out of his hand. He alone seems to have seen the sight, which he tells to his courtiers. The bonds were gone, and the men walking free in the fire, as if it had been their element. Three went in bound, four walk there at large; and the fourth is ‘like a son of the gods,’ by which expression Nebuchadnezzar can have meant nothing more than he had learned from his religion; namely, that the gods had offspring of superhuman dignity. He calls the same person an angel in Dan 3:28. He speaks there as the three would have spoken, and here as Babylonian mythology spoke.
But the great lesson to be gathered from this miracle of deliverance is simply that men who sacrifice themselves for God find in the sacrifice abundant blessing. They may, or may not, be delivered from the external danger. Peter was brought out of prison the night before his intended martyrdom; James, the brother of John, was slain with the sword, but God was equally near to both, and both were equally delivered from ‘Herod and from all the expectation of the people of the Jews.’ The disposal of the outward event is in His hands, and is a comparatively small matter. But no furnace into which a man goes because he will be true to God, and will not yield up his conscience, is a tenth part so hot as it seems, and it will do no real harm. The fire burns bonds, but not Christ’s servants, consuming many things that entangled, and setting them free. ‘I will walk at liberty: for I seek Thy precepts’-even if we have to walk in the furnace. No trials faced in obedience to God will be borne alone. ‘When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; . . . when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned.’
The form which Nebuchadnezzar saw amid the flame, as invested with more than human majesty, may have been but one of the ministering spirits sent forth to minister to the martyrs-the embodiment of the divine power which kept the flames from kindling upon them. But we have Jesus for our Companion in all trials, and His presence makes it possible for us to pass over hot ploughshares with unblistered feet; to bathe our hands in fire and not feel the pain; to accept the sorest consequences of fidelity to Him, and count them as ‘not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed,’ and is made more glorious through these light afflictions. A present Christ will never fail His servants, and will make the furnace cool even when its fire is fiercest.
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain On v1 The Golden Image and the Fiery Furnace
The Golden Image and the Fiery Furnace
Nebuchadnezzar sets up a colossal golden image, and summons to its dedication all the officials of his empire, who are commanded to fall down and worship the image at a given musical signal, on pain of being cast into a furnace (Dan_3:1-6). They all do so, with the exception of Daniel's three friends, whose refusal is reported to Nebuchadnezzar (Dan_3:7-12). They are summoned before the king, and persist in their refusal (Dan_3:13-18). Nebuchadnezzar commands the furnace to be heated seven times hotter than usual, and the three Jewish youths are bound and cast into it, the flames slaying their executioners (Dan_3:19-22). The king sees them walking in the fire unbound and accompanied by a divine figure (Dan_3:23-25). He summons them forth. finds them unharmed, magnifies their God, decrees that He be held in universal reverence; and gives them further promotion (Dan_3:26-30).
Read full note →
Teaching.This story of religious constancy and its reward was specially fitted to instruct and encourage the Jews in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes. There is a similar legend about Abraham and Nimrod.
1. Of gold] not necessarily solid, but perhaps overlaid. Threescore cubits.. six cubits] 90 feet by 9, or rather more. Dura is represented by the mounds of Dura, some 12 m. SSE. of Babylon.
2. Princes.. govenors.. captains] RV 'satraps.. deputies.. governors': so in Dan_3:3, Dan_3:27. 'Satraps' is a distinctly Persian term. Judges] RM 'chief soothsayers.' Sheriffs] RM 'lawyers.'
4. People] RV 'peoples.'
5. Sackbut] properly trigon, a stringed instrument with a triangular frame: so in Dan_3:7, Dan_3:10, Dan_3:15.
Psaltery] psanterin = Gk. psalterion—a stringed instrument. Dulcimer] RM 'bagpipe': so in Dan_3:7, Dan_3:10, Dan_3:15.
6. Burning fiery furnace] a form of death penalty mentioned in Jer_29:22 as inflicted by Nebuchadnezzar.
8. Chaldeans] a special offcial class, moved by jealousy.
12. See Dan_2:49,
14. Is it true.. do not ye serve] RV 'Is it of purpose.. that ye serve not.' Nebuchadnezzar is willing to put a favourable construction on their first refusal, and to give them another opportunity of obeying.
16. Are not careful] RV 'have no need.'
17. If it be so, etc.] read, 'If our God.. is able.. he will deliver us.' The words do not really question God's power, but mean rather, 'If our God sees fit,' etc.
18. But if not] The refusal is absolute, come what will.
20. The most mighty men] RV 'certain mighty men.'
21. Coats.. hosen.. hats] RV 'hosen.. tunics' (RM 'turbans').. 'mantles.'
23. In LXX the 'Song of the Three Holy Children' is inserted after this v.
25. The Son of God] RV 'a son of the gods,' a heavenly being, called an angel in v.,28. Nebuchadnezzar could not have used the expression in the definite Christian sense suggested by AV.
29. Made a dunghill] see on Dan_2:5.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On vv1, 8, 17 an image of gold
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.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain On v1 CHAPTER 3 The Image of Gold
CHAPTER 3 The Image of Gold
1. The image of gold (Dan 3:1-7)
Read full note →
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 martyr’s 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 Daniel’s companions.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv1, 19 The Three Men Loyal to Jehovah
The Three Men Loyal to Jehovah
v. 1. Nebuchadnezzar, the king, at some later period of his reign, made an image of gold, an immense idol figure, probably in the form of a human being, whose height was threescore cubits and the breadth thereof six cubits, that is, its height with its pedestal was about ninety feet and its width nine feet; he set it up in the Plain of Dura, very likely in the level country east of the Tigris, or in a smaller valley near the capital, in the province of Babylon.
Read full note →
v. 2. Then Nebuchadnezzar, the king, sent to gather together the princes, the governors, and the captains, executive officers of superior rank with both civil and military duties, the judges, or chief officers of administration, the treasurers, the financial directors or managers of the public treasury, the counselors, those learned in the law, the sheriffs, the inferior judges, and all the rulers of the provinces, to come to the dedication of the image which Nebuchadnezzar, the king, had set up, to have a great celebration in honor of the occasion, all the officials of the empire being the king’s guests during the festival.
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, proudly obedient to the king’s summons; and they stood before, over against, the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up, ready to take part in all the ceremonies of the dedication, since the picture was a symbol of Babylon’s world power and of the king’s divine majesty, as they believed.
v. 4. Then an herald cried aloud, literally, "with might," raising his voice to reach all the members of the assembled multitude, To you it is commanded, O people, nations, and languages, this evidently being a formula. used in the official edicts of the Chaldean Empire, by which the sovereign addressed himself to all the subjects of his great empire,
v. 5. that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, the horn or tuba of the ancients, flute, the reed-flute, or shepherd’s pipe, harp, a small four-stringed harp like a zither, sackbut, a triangular stringed instrument, psaltery, another kind of harp, dulcimer, a bappipe consisting of two pipes thrust through a leathern bag, and all kinds of music, the enumeration being characteristic of the pompous language used by a world ruler, ye fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar, the king, hath set up;
v. 6. and whoso falleth not down and worshipeth shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. This mode of punishment was in use among the Babylonians, and since all men were required to fall on their faces in the act of adoration, it would be all the easier to pick out all such as might refuse to obey the king’s decree.
v. 7. Therefore at that time, in accordance with the announcement of the herald, when all the people heard the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and all kinds of music, all the people, represented here by their respective rulers, the nations, and the languages, as many as had appeared for the great celebration, fell down and worshiped the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar, the king, had set up. It is to be noted here that, whereas most of the heathen nations tolerated the gods of the countries conquered by them, they at the same time required of the subdued people a greater veneration for their own gods, whose superiority they considered fully established by the fact of their being victors.
v. 8. Wherefore at that time certain Chaldeans, who were filled with jealousy on account of the promotion of the strangers, while they were obliged to be satisfied with inferior positions, came near and accused the Jews, literally, "they ate their pieces of flesh," a term used in the Aramaic for slandering, for casting hateful suspicions.
v. 9. They spake and said to the King Nebuchadnezzar, O king, live forever! this being the ordinary form of address in Babylonia.
v. 10. Thou, O king, hast made a decree, issued an unmistakable order, that every man that shall hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and an kinds of music, shall fall down and worship the golden image;
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, who, therefore, as the accusers intimate, were under special obligations toward the king as their benefactor, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego; these men, O king, whose influence and example were of such great importance, have not regarded thee, paying no attention to his commands; they serve not thy gods nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up. What made the behavior of these Chaldeans so particularly odious at this time was the fact that they used this one instance of disobedience to the king’s command on the part of the Jewish officials as an occasion for removing them from their offices, that, in other words, envy was the one motive which caused them to take such steps at this time. "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. "
v. 13. Then Nebuchadnezzar, in his rage and fury, in the extreme violence of his anger, commanded to bring Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, to have them delivered into his presence at once. Then they brought these men before the king.
v. 14. Nebuchadnezzar spake and said unto them, Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, do not ye serve my gods, literally, "With deliberate, evil intent are ye not serving my god?" nor worship the golden image which I have set up? His gods were here taken together and represented under the golden image, and Nebuchadnezzar construed the absence of the three men from the festive assembly as an endeavor purposely to avoid any participation in the ceremonies.
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, the completion of the conditional clause being omitted in the Aramaic, as in Exo 32:32; Luk 13:9; 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? This was not a direct blasphemy of the true God, but it was a very presumptive statement, since the king thereby declared the deliverance from the fiery furnace to be a work which no god was able to perform.
v. 16. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, the directness of their address giving added emphasis to their statement, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter, that is, they did not consider it necessary to search for a reasonable excuse or explanation.
v. 17. If it be so, our God, whom we serve, is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, rather, "If our God is able to deliver us," and He will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. This was not casting doubt upon the strength and ability of the Lord to help them; it only left the matter under the disposition of the gracious and good will of Him whose actions are always right and good.
v. 18. But if not, that is, if a deliverance is not in agreement with His counsel and will, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up. We have here a fine example of the loyalty of faith and of meek submission to the will of God. Christians in a similar situation may also find it impossible to produce an understanding of the issues involved in the minds of their adversaries. They will, therefore, not attempt to justify their attitude, but leave the matter entirely in the hands of God, whose ways are always good.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19, 21 Nebuchadnezzar made a gold statue ... He set it…
Nebuchadnezzar made a gold statue ... He set it up
Nebuchadnezzar commanded his men to do this work, he did not do the work himself. AT: "Nebuchadnezzar commanded his men to make a gold statue ... They set it up" (See: Metonymy)
Read full note →
sixty cubits tall and six cubits wide
A cubit is 46 centimeters. AT: "about 27 meters tall and almost 3 meters wide" (See: Biblical Distance)
Plain of Dura
This is a location within the kingdom of Babylon. (See: How to Translate Names)
provincial governors ... regional governors ... local governors
These are officials who have authority over different sizes of territory.
treasurers
These officials are in charge of money.
translationWords
king
Nebuchadnezzar
gold
province
Babylon
govern
advice
judge, judges
magistrate
dedicate
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 2, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 23 3:1-30 Nebuchadnezzar’s megalomania, perhaps encouraged by the vision of…
3:1-30 Nebuchadnezzar’s megalomania, perhaps encouraged by the vision of ch 2, inspired him to construct a gilded statue and demand that everyone in his empire worship it. He had not learned the lesson that God cannot be captured in any created thing. The three young Hebrews refused to worship it as a god. They were faithful to the Lord, and the Lord rescued them from the king’s wrath.
3:1 The plain of Dura might be the plain adjacent to the city of Babylon, or the Aramaic term might refer to the magnificent outer wall of Babylon described by the Greek historian Herodotus. • statue: Literally image.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.