Chapter 3

1 Nebuchadnezzar dedicateth a golden image in Dura. 8 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego are accused for not worshipping the image. 13 They, being threatened, make a good confession. 19 God delivereth them out of the furnace. 26Nebuchadnezzar seeing the miracle blesseth God.

1. Nebuchadnezzar. No date is given for the events of this chapter. The name of the king is the only indication as to when these events occurred. The LXX and Theodotion’s Greek translation date the events in Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year. Some scholars regard this as an interpolation. They reason that the translators believed that the colossal statue was erected to mark the final capture of Jerusalem. However, that city was not destroyed in Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year, but rather in his 19th (2 Kings 25:8–10). The date 580 b.c., long given in the margin of the KJV, is derived from Ussher’s chronology (see Vol. I, pp. 179, 195) and has no adequate historical basis. Some commentators have even placed the narrative in the period following Nebuchadnezzar’s madness described in ch. 4, but this position is untenable, as will be shown.

This much is certain, the events narrated in this chapter occurred later than those of the 2d chapter, because ch. 3:12, 30 refers to ch. 2:49. Further, a comparison of Nebuchadnezzar’s addresses of praise in ch. 3:28, 29 and ch. 4:34–37 indicates that the king’s madness was a later event. Secular history is of no help in dating this event, since extra-Biblical records of that time nowhere mention the incident. However, a court almanac written in the year 570/569 b.c. excludes that year from consideration as a possible date and makes it highly improbable that the event had taken place recently. This almanac gives a list of all the highest state officials in office during that year. Neither Daniel nor his three friends are mentioned. Since the event described in Dan. 3 resulted in a promotion of the three Hebrews, and since it is unlikely that they were removed from office soon after their promotion—at least all three of them—a considerable time may have elapsed between the experience narrated in ch. 3 and the date of the court almanac.

The influence of the dream of ch. 2 on the events of ch. 3 (see PK 504, 505) strongly suggests that the events of ch. 3 cannot be dated in the latter part of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. Some have suggested the date 594/593, for the following reasons: This date coincides with the 4th year of Zedekiah, who in that year made a journey to Babylon (Jer. 51:59). It is possible that the journey was undertaken in reply to the summons of Nebuchadnezzar that all his governors and vassal “rulers of the provinces” (Dan. 3:2) appear in Babylon to give homage to the image the king had erected. Zedekiah, a weak and vacillating character, would hardly be expected to have religious scruples such as made it impossible for Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to obey the king’s command. However, the dating of this event in the time of Zedekiah is no more than a possibility. See further SL 27.

Why Daniel is not mentioned in the narrative is a question that cannot be answered. Whether he was ill or absent on an important mission cannot be known. Some have conjectured that because of embarrassment at having rejected the message of the dream, the king arranged to have Daniel away on important business for the crown. However, of one thing we may be certain: had the test come to him, Daniel would have stood as loyal as his three companions.

Image of gold. The image of ch. 2 represented Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom by a golden head (v. 38). Not satisfied with this symbol, the king devised an image made of gold from the head to the feet, by which he desired to symbolize the perpetual and universal glory of his empire, and a kingdom that would not be followed by one of inferior quality.

Threescore cubits. The figures giving the measurements of the image witness to the use of the sexagesimal system (a system founded on the number 60) in Babylonia, a use attested also by cuneiform sources. The sexagesimal system of reckoning was an invention of the Babylonians. The system has certain advantages over the decimal system. For example, 60 is divisible evenly by 12 factors, whereas 100 is divisible evenly by only 9 factors. The system is still in use for certain measurements, such as of seconds, minutes, hours. It was therefore natural for the Babylonians to construct this image according to measurements of the sexagesimal system. The mentioning of this detail gives a true Babylonian color to the narrative.

Critics have pointed to the proportions of the image, 60 x 6 cu., about 871/2 by 83/4 ft. (26.7 by 2.7 m.), as evidence of the legendary character of the story, because the proportions of the human figure are less than 5 to 1. However, we do not know the appearance of the image. It is quite possible that the human portion itself was less than half of the total height and stood on a pedestal 30 or more cu. high, so that the whole structure, pedestal and image, was 60 cu. high. The modern Statue of Liberty has a total height of 305 ft., but more than half of this is the pedestal; the human figure is only 111 ft. from heel to top of head. J. A. Montgomery observes that the Aramaic word s\elem, here translated “image,” is used in a 7th century b.c. Aramaic inscription from Nerab, near Aleppo, to describe a stele that is but partly sculptured. Only the top is decorated with the relief of the bust of a human body. Hence s\elem, “image,” is not limited to a description of a human figure or other likeness but may include a pedestal as well.

Parallels to this enormous image are easily found in history. Pausanias describes the Amyclean Apollo, a slender column provided with head, arms, and feet, in the human form. The so-called Colossi of Memnon at ancient Thebes in Upper Egypt, in reality representations of King Amenhotep III, were built of stone. The ruins still stand, one being 65 ft. (19.8 m.) high. The best ancient parallel is perhaps the Colossus at Rhodes representing the god Helios. It was built from the war material left behind when Demetrius Poliorcetes raised his unsuccessful siege of the island in 305–04 b.c. The Colossus was 12 years in building. It was built of metal sheets covering a supporting framework, and reached a height of 70 cu., 10 cu. higher than Nebuchadnezzar’s image. About 225 b.c. an earthquake demolished the Colossus. It then lay in ruins for nearly 900 years, until the Saracens sold it for scrap metal. The Jew who purchased it broke it up and probably turned the metal back into war weapons.

Plain of Dura. The name of this plain survives in the name of a tributary of the Euphrates called Nahr Duµra, which enters the Euphrates 5 mi. (8 km.) below Hilla. Some neighboring hills also bear the name Dura. According to a tradition current among the inhabitants of Iraq today, the events described in ch. 3 took place at Kirkuk, which is now the center of the Iraqian oil fields. The tradition may have originated because burning gases formerly escaped from fissures in the ground at several places in the area, also because great amounts of combustible material like oil and asphalt were found there. The tradition, of course, must be rejected. The incident occurred near Babylon. Dura lay “in the province of Babylon.”

2. Princes. The Aramaic Хachashdarpan, “prince,” or “satrap,” was formerly considered as being of Persian origin. This view has now been abandoned, for cuneiform sources show that under the form satarpanu the word was used as early as the time of Sargon II (722–705 b.c.). A Hurrian origin has now been suggested. The Persians evidently took over this official title from the west. Hence the use of this title in the time of Nebuchadnezzar is by no means out of place. See further on Esther 3:12.

In Persian times this title designated officials at the head of satrapies, the largest divisions of the empire.

Governors. The Aramaic word segan is correctly translated “governors,” but also means “perfects.” It comes from the Akkadian shaknu, which has the same meaning. These officials administered provinces, the sections into which the satrapies were divided.

Captains. Aramic pechah, a synonym of signin (see the preceding comment under “governors”).

Judges. The Aramaic word Хadargazar, “judge,” has so far been found only in the middle-Persian from andarzaghar, meaning “counselor.” That it has not been attested in earlier texts does not prove that it was not in existence before the Persian period, because practically every discovery of a new inscription reveals words previously not known to have existed so early.

Treasurers. The origin of the Aramaic word gedabar has not as yet been determined.

Counsellors. The Aramaic dethabar literally means “lawbearer,” hence, “judge.” The word is found in cuneiform sources in the cognate form databari.

Sheriffs. Aramaic tiphtay, “sheriff,” or “police officer.” The word is found in the same form and with the same meaning in Aramaic papyri from Elephantine (on these papyri see Vol. III, pp. 79–83).

Rulers. The Aramaic shilt\on, “ruler,” from which the title sultan is derived. The term designates all the lower officials of any importance.

3. Then the princes. The repetition of all the titles, so characteristic of Semitic rhetoric, like the subsequent fourfold listing of the orchestral instruments (vs. 5, 7, 10, 15), is not found in the original LXX translation, possibly because such repetitions were objectionable to the classical taste. However, the later Greek translation of Theodotion preserves the repetition.

4. Herald. Aramic karoz, generally considered to be of Greek origin (cf. the Gr. kerux). Years ago critics offered this as one of the proofs for the late origin of the book of Daniel. H. H. Schaeder, however, has shown that the word is of Iranian origin (Iranische Beitra¬ge I [Halle, 1930], p. 56).

5. Cornet. For a general discussion of Hebrew musical instruments see Vol. III, pp. 29–42. Here, however, a Babylonian orchestra is described, in which several instruments vary from those in use among the ancient Hebrews.

Flute. Aramaic mashroqi, which designates the flute or pipe, as does the same word in Syriac and Mandaean.

Harp. Aramic qithros, “harp.” Qithros is generally considered to have come from the Greek kitharis, or kithara, “zither.” Thus far there is no known evidence from the inscriptions for an Akkadian or Iranian derivation. However, it would not be strange to find certain Greek loan words in a book written in Babylonia. We know from cuneiform texts of Nebuchadnezzar’s time that Ionians and Lydians were among the many foreigners employed on royal building projects. These carpenters and artisans may have introduced into Babylonia certain musical instruments formerly unknown there. It would be only natural that, with their acceptance by the Babylonians, the Greek names for these instruments would be taken over. In this way the existence of Greek names for certain musical instruments can easily be explained.

Sackbut. A mistransliteration of the Aramaic sabbekaХ (in vs. 7, 10, 15 sЊabbekaХ), probably through a similarity of sounds. The English word denotes an early form of slide trombone. The sabbekaХ was a triangular instrument with four strings and a bright tone. Although the name appears in Greek as sambukeµ and in Latin as sambuca, it is not of Western origin, as Lidzbarski has shown. The Greeks and Romans took over the name, along with the musical instruments, from the Phoenicians, a fact also attested by Strabo, who says (Geography x. 3. 17) that the word is of “barbarian” origin.

Psaltery. Aramaic pesanterin, which the LXX renders psalterion. The English “psaltery” is derived from the Greek through the Latin. The psalterion was a stringed instrument of triangular shape, with the sounding board above the strings.

Dulcimer. Aramaic sumponeyah. The word appears in Greek (sumphonia) as a musical term and as the name of a musical instrument, a bagpipe. The first reference to this instrument in literature outside of Daniel is found in Polybius (xxvi. 10; xxxi. 4), who describes the sumphonia as an instrument playing a role in anecdotes connected with King Antiochus IV. However, the instrument is depicted on a Hittite relief of Eyuk, a town about 20 mi. north of Boghazkцy in central Anatolia, as early as the middle of the second millennium b.c. The relief seems to indicate that, as in later times, the bagpipe was made of the skin of a dog.

Worship the golden image. So far the narrative has said nothing concerning the fact that worship of the image would be demanded. The invitation sent to all leading officials in Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom to gather in the plain of Dura, as far as the record goes, spoke only of the dedication of the image (v. 2), although people accustomed to the idolatrous practices of the time may have had no doubt as to the reason for the erection of the image. The payment of homage to the image would give proof of subjection to the power of the king, but at the same time show a recognition that the gods of Babylonia—the gods of the empire—were supreme over all local gods.

6. Whoso falleth not down. The king and his counselors, apparently expecting instances of refusal, threatened with the most cruel punishment any who refused to obey the command. Exclusive of the Jews, whose religious convictions prohibited their bowing down before any image (Ex. 20:5), ancient peoples did not object to worshiping idols. Hence the refusal to bow down before Nebuchadnezzar’s image would be regarded as proof of hostility toward Nebuchadnezzar and his government. Whether the king had anticipated the difficult position into which he forced his loyal Jewish servants, we do not know. It may be that he sent Daniel on a journey, to spare him the embarrassment (see on v. 1). From his contacts with Daniel the king must have known that a faithful Jew would refuse to worship the image, and that such a refusal could not be interpreted as a sign of disloyalty.

Fiery furnace. Although there are not many ancient examples of this kind of death penalty on record, a few are attested. One comes from the 2d millennium b.c., in which servants are threatened with this punishment. It is noteworthy that the same word that Daniel used for furnace (Хattun) is also found in the Babylonian cuneiform text (utuЖnum). The second example comes from Nebuchadnezzar’s son-in-law Nergal-sharusur. In one of his royal inscriptions he claims to have “burned to death adversaries and disobedient ones.” Compare Jer. 29:22.

The fiery furnace was probably a brickkiln. Since all buildings were constructed of bricks, many of them of burned bricks, kilns were numerous in the vicinity of ancient Babylon. Excavations show that ancient brickkilns were similar to modern ones, which are found in that area in great numbers. These kilns are ordinarily cone-shaped structures built of bricks. The unbaked bricks to be fired line the inner walls. An opening on one side of the wall permits fuel to be thrown into the interior. Fuel consists of a mixture of crude oil and chaff. A tremendous heat is thus produced, and through the opening the observer can see the fired bricks heated to a white glow.

8. Certain Chaldeans. Obviously members of the caste of magician-scientists and astrologer-astronomers, rather than members of the Chaldean nation as contrasted with citizens of the Jewish nation (see on ch. 1:4). Racial and nationalistic antagonisms were not involved so much as professional envy and jealousy. The accusers were members of the same caste to which the three loyal Jews belonged.

Accused. Aramaic Хakalu qars\ehon, a colorful expression, prosaically rendered by the English “accused.” A literal translation would be “they ate the pieces of,” or “they gnawed at,” hence, figuratively, “they calumniated,” “they slandered,” or “they accused.” The Aramaic expression, with a similar meaning, is found also in Akkadian, Ugaritic, and other Semitic languages.

9. O king, live for ever. See on ch. 2:4.

12. Thou hast set. A clear reference to the promotion recorded at the close of the preceding chapter (ch. 2:49). The mention of the exalted official rank of these Jews was designed to emphasize the dangerous feature connected with the disobedience of such men, also to direct attention to the seriousness of their ingratitude toward their royal benefactor. On the other hand, the fact that the Chaldeans gave prominence to the official position to which these Jews had been raised by the king suggests that their denunciation arose from jealousy. Their words also contained hidden insinuations against the king, and virtually blamed him for a lack of political foresight by appointing to high administrative offices foreign prisoners of war from whom naturally no loyalty toward the Babylonian king and his gods could be expected. This, they implied, the king should have foreseen.

14. Do not yet serve? Nebuchadnezzar’s opening question was based on the first part of the accusation of the Chaldeans. It must have been generally known that these Jewish officials did not worship the Babylonian idols. But because the king himself had recognized the God they served as “a God of gods, and a Lord of kings” (ch. 2:47), there had previously been no valid reason to accuse these men of subversive acts. Now, however, a direct command had been neglected, even despised, and the bold refusal to comply with the royal order to worship the image was probably interpreted as though the king’s tolerance toward these deviators was leading to defiance and rebellion. This would account for Nebuchadnezzar’s rage and fury.

15. Who is that God? This need not be considered direct blasphemy against the God of the Jews. Nevertheless it was a challenge addressed to Jehovah in a presumptuous spirit and with a haughty sense of superior power. Some have compared these words with those spoken by the Assyrian king Sennacherib, “Let not thy God, in whom thou trustest, deceive thee” (Isa. 37:10). But Nebuchadnezzar’s case was somewhat different. Sennacherib elevated his gods above Jehovah, the God of the Jews, but Nebuchadnezzar declared only that deliverance out of the fiery furnace was a work that no god could accomplish. In this acknowledgment he did no more than indirectly liken the God of the Jews to his own gods, with whose impotence in such matters he was sufficiently acquainted.

16. Careful. From the Aramaic chashach, “to be in need of.” The response of the defendants may be translated, “We have no need to answer you in this matter” (RSV). Some have interpreted this reply as highly arrogant, and have pointed to martyrs reacting similarly toward their persecutors. Yet J. A. Montgomery has shown that the term “to answer” is to be interpreted in a legal sense. Analogies from cognate and other languages show that the sense is to “make defense,” or “apology.” Since the defendants did not deny the truth of the indictment, they saw no need to make a defense. Their case rested in the hands of their God (see v. 17), and they made their answer in complete submission to His will, whatever might be the outcome of their trial. That they were not sure of coming through this experience alive can be seen from their further statement (v. 18). Had they been sure of deliverance, their reply could be interpreted as revealing spiritual arrogance. As the case stood, their attitude showed their firm conviction that their course of action was the only feasible one, which needed no defense, or even further explanation.

17. If it be so. The introductory particle translated “if” has been the subject of much debate among commentators. Both ancient and modern versions reflect some uncertainty as to its correct meaning. Two interpretations predominate: (1) that of the KJV, RV, ASV, RSV, and others, which reflect the meaning, “If it be so, our God … is able to deliver us, … but if not,” etc.; and (2) that of modern commentators who interpret the passage, “If our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the fiery burning furnace and from thy hand, O king, he will save (us); but if not,” etc. The latter translation is inconsistent with the faith of the three Jewish defendants elsewhere revealed. The first translation seems the more fair reflection of the firm faith of these worthies in God’s omnipotence and unsearchable wisdom. God could save them if it was best for them and for the glory of His name and cause. The “if” should not be taken as an indication of doubt in God’s power to save, but as an indication of uncertainty as to whether it was God’s will to save.

The LXX has no introductory particle “if” and has the whole statement (vs. 16–18) a positive declaration: “O king, we have no need to answer thee concerning this command. For God in the heavens is our one Lord, whom we fear, and who is able to deliver us out of the furnace of fire; and out of your hands, O king, he will deliver us; and then it shall be manifest to thee that we will serve neither thy idol, nor worship thy golden image.” However, scholars generally prefer the Masoretic reading (see on v. 16).

19. One seven times more. Aramaic chadshibФah, literally meaning, “one seven,” with the meaning “seven times,” is a rather strange construction, but the same form is used also in an Aramaic letter of the 5th century b.c., from Elephantine. Some grammarians have thought that it is an abbreviation of a usual Aramaic idiom, while others, like Montgomery, think that “it may come from reminiscence of recitation of multiplication tables.” The increased heat in the furnace was probably produced by an extraordinary supply of chaff and crude oil. The oil would be obtained from the many open oil wells of Mesopotamia, which, from ancient times, have lavishly furnished this product, and with which modern brickkilns in the area are fired (see on v. 6). The purpose of this extraordinary command was probably not to increase the punishment. An increase of heat in the furnace would not have increased the torture of the victims. The king intended to forestall any possible intervention (see EGW, Supplementary Material, on this verse).

20. The most mighty men. Better, “some strong men,” or “certain mighty men” (RSV). The choice of military men of outstanding strength was probably to forestall the possibility of intervention on the part of the gods.

21. Coats. The Aramaic words describing the “coats” and the “hosen” (Old English for “trousers”) are not yet fully understood. Lexicographers agree that the renderings offered in the KJV are approximately correct.

Hats. Aramaic karbelah, a word of Akkadian origin, as shown by the cuneiform texts, where it appears as karballatu, “cap.” In the Naqsh-i-Rustam inscription of Darius I the term designates the helmet, but in late Babylonian texts it stands for “hats.” The mention of the separate articles of clothing, consisting of easily inflammable material, was doubtless with reference to the miracle that followed (see v. 27).

23. Burning fiery furnace. Following v. 23, manuscripts of the oldest translations of Daniel, the LXX and Theodotion, contain a long Apocryphal addition of 68 verses, called “The Song of the Three Holy Children.” The song consists of three parts: (1) Prayer of Azarias (Abednego), composed of both confession and supplication (vs. 24–45); (2) a prose interlude, describing the heating of the fire and the descent of the angel of the Lord to cool the flames (vs. 46–50); (3) the benediction of the three (vs. 51–91). Although recognized by Jerome as spurious, this Apocryphal addition found its way into Roman Catholic Bibles as canonical. Scholars debate whether the song is of Christian or Jewish origin. A number of them believe the work was produced approximately 100 b.c. See p. 744.

24. Rose up in haste. The king had evidently gone to the place of execution, undoubtedly to make sure that his command would be properly carried out. He was probably seated so that he could observe the victims as they were thrown into the fire.

25. Like the Son of God. Commentators have variously interpreted the exclamation of the astonished Nebuchadnezzar concerning the fourth individual in the fiery furnace. Jewish scholars have always identified him simply as an angel. This view is reflected in the LXX, which translates the phrase “like an angel of God.” Early Christian interpreters (Hippolytus, Chrysostom, and others), on the other hand, saw in this fourth personage the second person of the Godhead. The rendering of the KJV reflects this interpretation. The majority of conservative Christians hold to this view, although modern critical commentators have now generally discarded it, as is seen by the translations of the RV, ASV, RSV, and other modern versions, “like a son of the gods.”

The problem is one of Aramaic grammar and interpretation. The Aramaic Хelahin, “gods,” is the plural ofХelah, “god.” In some cases where Хelahin is used, reference is made to pagan gods (chs. 2:11, 47; 5:4, 23). However, there are two passages besides the one under discussion where Хelahin can be interpreted to refer to the true God of Daniel (ch. 5:11, 14; see RSV footnote). Hence the translation “God” for Хelahin is justifiable if it can be established that Nebuchadnezzar was employing the term as a proper name. Grammatically, both translations, “like the son of God,” and, “like a son of the gods,” are correct.

The context reveals that Nebuchadnezzar acknowledged the superiority of the most high God of Israel (see chs. 3:26, 28, 29; 4:2). In these statements the king was not referring to gods in general but to the God in particular. For this reason conservative interpreters prefer the translation of the KJV and can linguistically defend their preference (see PK 509; Problems in Bible Translation, pp. 170–173).

26. Most high God. Nebuchadnezzar’s acknowledgment that the God of the three Hebrews was the “most high God” does not necessarily imply that the king had abandoned his polytheistic concepts. To him the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego was not the only true God, but simply the most high God, the chief of all gods, in the same way as the Greeks called their Zeus ho hupsistos theos, “the highest god.” The term is also attested in this sense in Phoenicia, and later in the inscriptions of Palmyra.

27. The princes. Concerning the officials mentioned here see on v. 2.

Coats. See on v. 21.

28. Blessed be the God. The miraculous deliverance of the three men made a deep impression on the king and altered his earlier and erroneous opinion (v. 15) about the God of the Hebrews. Nebuchadnezzar now spoke in praise of the might of this God, announcing publicly that this God had saved His worshipers, and decreeing that anyone who dishonored this God would be punished by death (v. 29). His acknowledgment revealed progression in his concept of God (see ch. 2:47; p. 751).

29. I make a decree. In this unusual way many peoples who would otherwise never have heard of the God of the Hebrews would be introduced to Him. Nevertheless, Nebuchadnezzar exceeded his rights when he sought by force to compel men to honor the God of the Hebrews (PK 511).

Cut in pieces. On the penalties here threatened see on ch. 2:5.

30. Promoted. The verb form thus translated means primarily “to cause to prosper,” and in a wider sense “to promote.” How this promotion was effected is not stated. The three worthies may have received money, or more influence and power in the administration of the province, or more elevated titles. By faithfulness in the face of death the three Hebrew worthies had demonstrated qualities of character that made it evident that they could be trusted with even greater responsibilities than they had previously borne.

Ellen G. White comments

1–30PK 503–513

1 PK 505

1–6SL 36

4, 5 PK 506

4–7ML 68

7 PK 506

9, 12–15PK 507

12–18SL 37

16–185T 43

16–20LS 329

16–22PK 508

17–22ML 68

23 Ed 254; 5T 453

24, 25 ML 256; SL 38; 3T 47; 4T 212

24–26PK 509

25 ML 68, 317

25–27AA 570; LS 330

26–29SL 39

27–29PK 510; 5T 453