Daniel 3 - Introduction

Section I. - Authenticity of the Chapter

The objections which have been urged against the authenticity of this chapter are much more numerous than those which have been alleged against the two previous chapters.

I. The first which deserves to be noticed is stated by De Wette (p. 383, under the general head of “improbabilities” in the chapter), and Bleek, p. 268, as quoted by Hengstenberg, “die Authentie des Daniel,” p. 83. The objection is, substantially, that if the account in this chapter is true, it would prove that the Chaldeans were inclined to persecution on account of religious opinions, which, it is said, is contrary to their whole character as elsewhere shown. So far as we have any information in regard to them, it is alleged, they were far from having this character, and it is not probable, therefore, that Nebuchadnezzar would make a law which would compel the worship of an idol under severe pains and penalties.

To this objection the following reply may be made:

(1) Little is known, on any supposition, of the Chaldeans in general, and little of the character of Nebuchadnezzar in particular, beyond what we find in the book of Daniel. So far, however, as we have any knowledge of either from any source, there is no inconsistency between that and what is said in this chapter to have occurred. It is probable that no one ever perceived any incongruity of this kind in the book itself, nor, if this were all, should we suppose that there was any improbability in the account in this chapter.

(2) There is properly no account of “persecution” in this narrative, nor any reason to suppose that Nebuchadnezzar designed any such thing. This is admitted by Bertholdt himself (p. 261), and is manifest on the face of the whole narrative. It is indeed stated that Nebuchadnezzar demanded, on severe penalties, a recognition of the god that he worshipped, and required that the reverence should be shown to that god which he thought to be his due. It is true, also, that the monarch intended to be obeyed in what seems to us to be a very arbitrary and unreasonable command, that they should assemble and fall down and worship the image which he had set up. But this does not imply any disposition to persecute on account of religion, or to prevent in others the free exercise of their own religious opinions, or the worship of their own gods. It is well known that it was a doctrine of all ancient idolaters, that respect might be shown to foreign gods - to the gods of other people - without in the least degree implying a want of respect for their own gods, or violating any of their obligations to them.

The universal maxim was, that the gods of all nations were to be respected, and hence, foreign gods might be introduced for worship, and respect paid to them without in any degree detracting from the honor which was due to their own. Nebuchadnezzar, therefore, simply demanded that homage should be shown to the idol that “he” had erected; that the god whom “he” worshipped should be acknowledged as a god; and that respect should thus be shown to himself, and to the laws of his empire, by acknowledging “his” god, and rendering to that god the degree of homage which was his due. But it is nowhere intimated that he regarded his idol as the “only” true god, or that he demanded that he should be recognized as such, or that he was not willing that all other gods, in their place, should be honored. There is no intimation, therefore, that he meant to “persecute” any other men for worshipping their own gods, nor is there any reason to suppose that he apprehended that there would be any scruples on religious grounds about acknowledging the image that he set up to be worthy of adoration and praise.

(3) There is no reason to think that he was so well acquainted with the peculiar character of the Hebrew religion as to suppose that its votaries would have any difficulty on this subject, or would hesitate to unite with others in adoring his image. He knew, indeed, that they were worshippers of Jehovah; that they had reared a magnificent temple to his honor in Jerusalem, and that they professed to keep his laws. But there is no reason to believe that he was very intimately acquainted with the laws and institutions of the Hebrews, or that he supposed that they would have any difficulty in doing what was universally understood to be proper - to show due respect to the gods of other nations. Certainly, if he had intimately known the history of a considerable portion of the Hebrew people, and been acquainted with their proneness to fall into idolatry, he would have seen little to make him doubt that they would readily comply with a command to show respect to the gods worshipped in other lands. There is no reason, therefore, to suppose that he anticipated that the Hebrew exiles, anymore than any other people, would hesitate to show to his image the homage which he required.

(4) The whole account agrees well with the character of Nebuchadnezzar. He was an arbitrary monarch. He was accustomed to implicit obedience. He was determined in his character, and resolute in his purposes. Having once formed the resolution to erect such a magnificent image of his god - one that would correspond with the greatness of his capital, and, at the same time, show his respect for the god that he worshipped - nothing was more natural than that he should issue such a proclamation that homage should be shown to it by all his subjects, and that, in order to secure this, he should issue this decree, that whoever did “not” do it should be punished in the severest manner. There is no reason to suppose that he had any particular class of persons in his eye, or, indeed, that he anticipated that the order would be disobeyed by “any” class of persons. In fact, we see in this whole transaction just one illustration of what usually occurred under the arbitrary despotisms of the East, where, “whatever” is the order that is issued from the throne, universal and absolute submission is demanded, under the threatening of a speedy and fearful punishment. The order of Nebuchadnezzar was not more arbitrary and unreasonable than those which have been frequently issued by the Turkish sultan.

II. A second objection to the chapter is the account of the musical instruments in Daniel 3:5. The objection is, that to some of these instruments “Grecian” names are given, and that this proves that the transaction must have a later date than is attributed to it, or that the account must have been written by one of later times. The objection is, that the whole statement seems to have been derived from the account of some Greek procession in honor of the gods of Greece. See Bleek, p. 259.

To this objection, it may be replied:

(a) that such processions in honor of the gods, or such assemblages, accompanied with musical instruments, were, and are, common among all people. They occur constantly in the East, and it cannot, with any propriety, be said that one is borrowed from another.

(b) A large part of these instruments have undoubtedly Chaldee names given to them, and the names are such as we may suppose that one living in the times of Nebuchadnezzar would give them. See the notes at Daniel 3:5.

(c) As to those which are alleged to indicate a Greek origin, it may be observed, that it is quite uncertain whether the origin of the name was Greek or Chaldee. That such names are found given to instruments of music by the Greeks is certain; but it is not certain from where they obtained the name. For anything that can be proved to the contrary, the name may have had an Eastern origin. It is altogether probable that many of the names of things among the Greeks had such an origin; and if the instrument of music itself - as no one can prove it did not - came in from the East, the “name” came also from the East.

(d) It may be further stated, that, even on the supposition that the name had its origin in Greece, there is no absolute certainty that the name and the instrument were unknown to the Chaldeans. Who can prove that some Chaldean may not have been in Greece, and may not have borne back to his own country some instrument of music that he found there different from those which he had been accustomed to at home, or that he may not have constructed an instrument resembling one which he had seen there, and given it the same name? Or who can prove that some strolling Greek musician may not have traveled as far as Babylon - for the Greeks traveled everywhere - and carried with him some instrument of music before unknown to the Chaldeans, and imparted to them at the same time the knowledge of the instrument and the name? But until this is shown the objection has no force.

III. A third objection is, that the statement in Daniel 3:22, that the persons appointed to execute the orders of the king died from the heat of the furnace, or that the king issued an order, to execute which perilled the lives of the innocent who were entrusted with its execution, is improbable.

To this it may be said

(a) that there is no evidence or affirmation that the king contemplated “their” danger, or designed to peril their lives; but it is undoubtedly a fact that he was intent on the execution of his own order, and that he little regarded the peril of those who executed it. And nothing is more probable than this; and, indeed, nothing more common. A general who orders a company of men to silence or take a battery has no malice against them, and no design on their lives; but he is intent on the accomplishment of the object, whatever may be the peril of the men, or however large a portion of them may fall. In fact, the objection which is here made to the credibility of this narrative is an objection which would lie with equal force against most of the orders issued in battle, and not a few of the commands issued by arbitrary monarchs in time of peace. The fact in this case was, the king was intent on the execution of his purpose - the punishment of the refractory and stubborn men who had resisted his commands, and there is no probability that, in the excitements of wrath, he would pause to inquire whether the execution of his purpose would endanger the lives of those who were entrusted with the execution of the order or not.

(b) There is every probability that the heat “would” be so great as to peril the lives of those who should approach it. It is said to have been made seven times hotter than usual Daniel 3:19; that is, as hot as it could be made, and, if this were so, it is by no means an unreasonable supposition that those who were compelled to approach it so near as to cast others in should be in danger.

IV. A fourth objection, urged by Griesinger, p. 41, as quoted by Hengstenberg, “Authentie des Daniel,” p. 92, is, that “as Nebuchadnezzar had the furnace already prepared ready to throw these men in, he must have known beforehand that they would not comply with his demand, and so must have designed to punish them; or that this representation is a mere fiction of the writer, to make the delivery of these men appear more marvelous.”

To this it may be replied,

(a) that there is not the slightest evidence, from the account in Daniel, that Nebuchadnezzar had the furnace prepared beforehand, as if it were expected that some would disobey, and as if he meant to show his wrath. He indeed Daniel 3:6 threatens this punishment, but it is clear, from Daniel 3:19, that the furnace was not yet heated up, and that the occasion of its being heated in such a manner was the unexpected refusal of these three men to obey him.

(b) But if it should be admitted that there was a furnace thus glowing - heated with a view to punish offbnders - it would not be contrary to what sometimes occurs in the East under a despotism. Sir John Chardin (Voy. en Perse. iv. p. 276) mentions in his time (in the seventeenth century) a case similar to this. He says that during a whole month, in a time of great scarcity, an oven was kept heated to throw in all persons who had failed to comply with the laws in regard to taxation, and had thus defrauded the government. This was, in fact, strictly in accordance with the character of Oriental despotism. We know, moreover, from Jeremiah 29:22, that this mode of punishment was not unknown in Babylon, and it would seem probable that it was not uncommon in the time of Nebuchadnezzar. Thus Jeremiah says, “And of them shall be taken up a curse by all the captivity of Judah which are in Babylon, saying, The Lord make thee like Zedekiah and like Ahab, whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire.”

V. A fifth objection is stated thus by Bertholdt: “Why did the wonders recorded in this chapter take place? It was only for this purpose that Nebuchadnezzar might be made to appear to give praise to God, that he is represented as giving commandment that no one should reproach him. But this object is too small to justify such an array of means.” To this it may be replied,

(a) that it does not appear from the chapter that this was the “object” aimed at.

(b) There were other designs in the narrative beside this. They were to show the firmness of the men who refused to worship an idol-god; to illustrate their conscientious adherence to their religion; to show their confidence in the Divine protection; to prove that God will defend those who put their trust in him, and that he can deliver them even in the midst of the flames. These things were worthy of record.

VI. It has been objected that “the expression in which Nebuchadnezzar Daniel 3:28 is represented as breaking out, after the rescue of the three men, is altogether contrary to his dignity, and to the respect for the religion of his fathers and of his country, which he was bound to defend.” - Bertholdt, p. 253. But to this it may be replied,

(a) that if this scene actually occurred before the eyes of the king - if God had thus miraculously interposed in delivering his servants in this wonderful manner from the heated furnace, nothing would be more natural than this. It was a manifest miracle, a direct interposition of God, a deliverance of the professed friends of Jehovah by a power that was above all that was human, and an expression of surprise and achniration was in every way proper on such an occasion.

(b) It accorded with all the prevailing notions of religion, and of the respect due to the gods, to say this. As above remarked, it was a principle recognized among the pagan to honor the gods of other nations, and if they had interposed to defend their own votaries, it was no more than was admitted in all the nations of idolatry. If, therefore, Jehovah had interposed to save his own friends and worshippers, every principle which Nebuchadnezzar held on the subject would make it proper for him to acknowledge the fact, and to say that honor was due to him for his interposition. In this, moreover, Nebuchadnezzar would be understood as saying nothing derogatory to the gods that he himself worshipped, or to those adored in his own land. All that is “necessary” to be supposed in what he said is, that he now felt that Jehovah, the God whom the Hebrews adored, had shown that he was worthy to be ranked among the gods, and that in common with others, he had power to protect his own friends.

To this it may be added

(c) that, in his way, Nebuchadnezzar everywhere showed that he was a “religious” man: that is, that he recognized the gods, and was ever ready to acknowledge their interference in human affairs, and to render them the honor which was their due. Indeed, this whole affair grew out of his respect for “religion,” and what here occurred was only in accordance with his general principle. that when any God had shown that he had power to deliver his people, he should be acknowledged, and that no words of reproach should be uttered against hhn Daniel 3:29.

VII. A more plausible objection than those which have just been noticed is urged by Luderwald, Jahn, Dereser, in regard to the account which is given of the image which Nebuchadnezzar is said to have erected. This objection has reference to the “size” of the image, to its proportions, and to the material of which it is said to have been composed. This objection, as stated by Bertholdt (p. 256), is substantially the following: “That the image had probably a human form, and yet that the proportions of the human figure are by no means observed - the height being represented to have been sixty cubits, and its breadth six cubits - or its height being to its breadth as ten to one, whereas the proportion of a man is only six to one; that the amount of gold in such an image is incredible, being beyond any means which the king of Babylon could have possessed; and that probably the image here referred to was one that Herodotus says he saw in the temple of Belus at Babylon (I. 183), and which Diodorus Siculus describes (II. 9), and which was only forty feet in height.” See the notes at Daniel 3:1. In regard to this objection, we may observe, then -

(a) That there is no certainty that this was the same image which is referred to by Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus. That image was “in” the temple; this was erected on the “plain of Dura.” See the notes at Daniel 3:1. But, so far as appears, this may have been erected for a temporary purpose, and the materials may then have been employed for other purposes; that in the temple was permanent.

(b) As to the amount of gold in the image - it is not said or implied that it was of solid gold. It is well known that the images of the gods were made of wood or clay, and overlaid with gold or silver, and this is all that is necessarily implied here. See the notes at Daniel 3:1.

(c) The “height” of the alleged image can be no real objection to the statement. It is not necessary to assume that it had the human form - though that is probable - but if that be admitted, there can be no objection to the supposition that, either standing by itself, or raised on a pedestal, it may have been as lofty as the statement here implies. The colossal figure at Rhodes was an hundred and five Grecian feet in height, and being made to stride the mouth of the harbor, was a work of much more difficult construction than this figure would have been.

(d) As to the alleged “disproportion” in the figure of the image, see the notes at Daniel 3:1. To what is there said may be added:

(1) It is not necessary to suppose that it had the human form. Nothing of this kind is affirmed, though it may be regarded as probable. But if it had not, of course the objection would have no force.

(2) If it had the human form, it is by no means clear whether it had a sitting or a standing posture. Nothing is said on this point in regard to the image or statue, and until this is determined, nothing can be said properly respecting the proportions.

(3) It is not said whether it stood by itself, or whether it rested on a basis or pediment - and until this is determined, no objections can be valid as to the proportion of the statue. It is every way probable that the image was reared on a lofty pedestal, and for anything that appears, the proportions of the “image itself,” whether sitting or standing, may have been well preserved.

(4) But in addition to this it should be said, that if the account here is to be taken literally as stating that the image was ten times as high as it was broad - thus failing to observe the proper human proportions - the account would not be incredible. It is admitted by Gesenius (Ency. vonr Ersch und Gruber, art. Babylon, Thes vii. p. 24), that the Babylonians had no correct taste in these matters. “The ruins,” says he, “are imposing by their colossal greatness, not by their beauty; all the ornaments are rough and barbarian.” The Babylonians, indeed, possessed a taste for the colossal, the grand, the imposing, but they also had a taste for the monstrous and the prodigious, and a mere want of “proportion” is not a sufficient argument to prove that what is stated here did not occur.

VIII. But one other objection remains to be noticed. It is one which is noticed by Bertholdt (pp. 251, 252), that, if this is a true account, it is strange that “Daniel” himself is not referred to; that if he was, according to the representation in the last chapter, a high officer at court, it is unaccountable that he is not mentioned as concerned in these affairs, and especially that he did not interpose in behalf of his three friends to save them. To this objection it is sufficient to reply

(a) that, as Bertholdt himself (p. 287) suggests, Daniel may have been absent from the capital at this time on some business of state, and consequently the question whether “he” would worship the image may not have been tested. It is probable, from the nature of the case, that he would be employed on such embasies or be sent to some other part of the empire from time to time, to arrange the affairs of the provinces, and no one can demonstrate that he was not absent on this occasion. Indeed, the fact that he is not mentioned at all in the transaction would serve to imply this; since, if he were at court, it is to be presumed that he himself would have been implicated as well as his three friends. Compare Daniel 6: He was not a man to shrink from duty, or to decline any proper method of showing his attachment to the religion of his fathers, or any proper interest in the welfare of his friends. But

(b) it is possible that even if Daniel were at court at that time, and did not unite in the worship of the image, he might have escaped the danger. There were undoubtedly manymore Jews in the province of Babylon who did not worship this image, but no formal accusation was brought against them, and their case did not come before the king. For some reason, the accusation was made specific against these three men - “for they were rulers in the province” Daniel 2:49, and being foreigners, the people under them may have gladly seized the occasion to complain of them to the king. But so little is known of the circumstances, that it is not possible to determine the matter with certainty. All that needs to be said is, that the fact that Daniel was not implicated in the affair is no proof that the three persons referred to were not; that it is no evidence that what is said of “them” is not true because nothing is said of Daniel.”

Section II. - Analysis of the Chapter

This chapter, which is complete in itself, or which embraces the entire narrative relating to an important transaction, contains the account of a magnificent brazen image erected by Nebuchadnezzr, and the reslilt of attempting to constrain the conscientious Hebrews to worship it. The narrative comprises the following points:

I. The erection of the great image in the plain of Dura, Daniel 3:1.

II. The dedication of the image in the presence of the great princes and governors of the provinces, the high officers of state, and an immense multitude of the people, accompanied with solemn music, Daniel 3:2.

III. The complaint of certain Chaldeans respecting the Jews, that they refused to render homage to the image, reminding the king that he had solemnly enjoined this on all persons, on penalty of being cast into a burning furnace in case of disobedience, Daniel 3:8. This charge was brought particularly against Shadtach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. Daniel escaped the accusation, for reasons which will be stated in the notes at Daniel 3:12. The common people of the Jews also escaped, as the command extended particularly to the rulers.

IV. The manner in which Nebuchadnezzar received this accusation, Daniel 3:13. He was filled with rage; he summoned the accused into his presence; he commanded them to prostrate themselves before the image on penalty of being cast at once into the fiery furnace.

V. The noble answer of the accused, Daniel 3:16. They stated to the king that his threat did not alarm them, and that they felt no solicitude to answer him in regard to the matter Daniel 3:16; that they were assured that the God whom they served was able to deliver them from the furnace, and from the wrath of the king Daniel 3:17; but that even if he did not, whatever might be the issue, they could not serve the gods of the Chaldeans, nor worship the image which the king had set up.

VI. The infliction of the threatened punishment, Daniel 3:19. The furnace was commanded to be heated seven times hotter than usual; they were bound and thrown in with their usual apparel on; and the hot blast of the furnace destroyed the men who were employed to perform this service.

VII. Their protection and preservation, Daniel 3:24. The astonished monarch who had commanded three men to be cast in “bound,” saw four men walking in the midst of the flames “loose;” and satisfied now they had a Divine Protector, awed by the miracle, and doubtless dreading the wrath of the Divine Being that had become their protector, he commanded them suddenly to come out. The princes, and governors, and captains were gathered together, and these men, thus remarkably preserved, appeared before them uninjured.

VIII. The effect on the king, Daniel 3:28. As in the case when Daniel had interpreted his dream Daniel 2, he acknowledged that this was the act of the true God, Daniel 3:28. He issued a solemn command that the God who had done this should be honored, for that no other God could deliver in this manner, Daniel 3:29. He again restored them to their honorable command over the provinces, Daniel 3:30.