Daniel 3:21 Komentář

In the close of the foregoing chapter we left Daniel's companions, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, in honour and power, princes of the provinces, and preferred for their relation to the God of Israel and the interest they had in him. I know not whether I should say. It were well if this honour had all the saints. No, there are many whom it would not be good for; the saints' honour is reserved for another world. But here we have those same three men as much under the king's displeasure as when they were in his favour, and yet more truly, more highly, honoured by their God than there they were honoured by their prince, both by the grace wherewith he enabled them rather to suffer than to sin and by the miraculous and glorious deliverance which he wrought for them out of their sufferings. It is a very memorable story, a glorious instance of the power and goodness of God, and a great encouragement to the constancy of his people in trying times. The apostle refers to it when he mentions, among the believing heroes, those who by faith "quenched the violence of fire," Heb 11:34. We have here, I. Nebuchadnezzar's erecting and dedicating a golden image, and his requiring all his subjects, of what rank or degree soever, to fall down and worship it, and the general compliance of his people with that command (Dan 3:1-7). II. Information given against the Jewish princes for refusing to worship this golden image (Dan 3:8-12). III. Their constant persisting in that refusal, notwithstanding his rage and menaces (Dan 3:13-18). IV. The casting of them into the fiery furnace for their refusal (Dan 3:19-23). V. Their miraculous preservation in the fire by the power of God, and their invitation out of the fire by the favour of the king, who was by this miracle convinced of his error in casting them in (Dan 3:24-27). VI. The honour which the king gave to God hereupon, and the favour he showed to those faithful worthies (Dan 3:28-30).

INTRODUCTION TO DANIEL 3 In this chapter an account is given of a golden image made by Nebuchadnezzar; its size; and where placed, Dan 3:1, a summons to all his princes, governors, and officers, to attend the dedication of it, Dan 3:2, a proclamation commanding men of all nations to fall down and worship it, at hearing the sound of music, Dan 3:4, an accusation of the Jews to the king, particularly Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, for not worshipping it, Dan 3:8, the king's sending for them in rage, and threatening to cast them into a fiery furnace if they continued to disobey his will, Dan 3:13, their answer, which showed an inflexible resolution at all events not to comply with it, Dan 3:16 the king's order to heat the furnace seven times hotter than usual, and cast them into it, which was executed; the consequence of which was, they that cast them in were destroyed through the vehement heat of the furnace, but the three Jews were unhurt, Dan 3:19. Nebuchadnezzar's amazement at the sight of four persons, instead of three; and these loose, walking in the midst of the fire without hurt; and one of them like the Son of God, which he observed to his counsellors, Dan 3:24, upon which he called to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, to come out of the furnace, which they did in the presence of his princes, governors, and officers, having received not the least harm in their persons or clothes, Dan 3:26 and then the king, praising the God of the Jews, published an edict that none should speak against him on pain of death; and restored the three men to their former dignity, Dan 3:28.

Then these men were bound in their coats,.... Their upper coats, cloaks, or mantles, as Aben Ezra and Jacchiades; though, according to the use of the word in the Arabic language, the "femoralia" (r) or breeches are meant: their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments: their turbants on their heads, which were usually wore in those countries; and their stockings and shoes, and other under garments, as waistcoats and shirts; which through haste or negligence, or with design, were kept on them, to make their torment the greater; but were intended by the Lord to make the miracle the more conspicuous. According to Cocceius (s) and Bynaeus (t), the first of these words signifies the outward covering of the body, as cloaks, &c.; the second the covering of the feet, as socks, shoes, and sandals; and the third the covering of the head, as caps, turbants, helmets, &c.; the last the inner garments that were under the upper ones: and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace; in the manner and circumstances before related. (r) "cum femoralibus", Pagninus; so Syr. Ar.; "cum braccis suis", V. L. (s) Expos. Dict. Chald. col. 1022. rad (t) De Calceis Hebr. l. 2. c. 10. sect 4, 5, 6, 7.

Verse 21. "And straightway those men, bound up in their trousers and turbans and footgear and garments, were cast into the midst of the furnace of flaming fire..." Instead of sarbal, "trousers" interpreted by Symmachus as anaxy-rides ("trousers"), Aquila and Theodotion read simply saraballa rather than the corrupt reading sarabara. Now the shanks and shin-bones are called saraballa in the language of the Chaldeans, and by extension of the same word it is applied to those articles of clothing which cover the shanks and shins, as if they were to be called "shankies" and "shinnies" (crurales et tibiales). "Turban," however, is a Greek word, tiara which has by usage become a Latin word also, and Virgil says of it (Aeneid, VII): "Both scepter and sacred tiara." It was, however, a kind of skull-cap used by the Persian and Chaldean races.

Nebuchadnezzar, having erected an image, whose height (including 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, Dan 3:1-7; 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, Dan 3:8-15. 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, Dan 3:16-18. 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, Dan 3:19-23. 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 honor, Dan 3:24-30. A striking example of the interposition of Providence in favor of true and inflexible piety.

Their hats - This word, hat, is found only in this place in the Old Testament. The word סרבל sarbal properly means an outer garment. Herodotus, who lived about one hundred years after Daniel, says, "the dress of the Babylonians consisted of a tunic of linen reaching down to the feet; over this a tunic of woollen; and over all a white short cloak or mantle, χλανιδιον; and on their heads they wore turbans, μιτρησι." Following this, Mr. Parkhurst translates the verse thus: "Then these three men were bound [בסרבליהון besarbaleyhon] in their Cloaks, [פמישיהון patesheyhon] their Turbans, [וכרבלתהון vecharbelathehon] and in their Upper (woollen) Tunics, [ולבושיהון ulebushehon] and their Under (linen) Tunics." And as, according to this interpretation, their סרבלי sarbaley were their outermost garments, we see the propriety with which it is observed at Dan 3:27 that these were not changed by the fire.

NEBUCHADNEZZAR'S IDOLATROUS IMAGE; SHADRACH, MESHACH, AND ABED-NEGO ARE DELIVERED FROM THE FURNACE. (Dan. 3:1-30) image--Nebuchadnezzar's confession of God did not prevent him being a worshipper of idols, besides. Ancient idolaters thought that each nation had its own gods, and that, in addition to these, foreign gods might be worshipped. The Jewish religion was the only exclusive one that claimed all homage for Jehovah as the only true God. Men will in times of trouble confess God, if they are allowed to retain their favorite heart-idols. The image was that of Bel, the Babylonian tutelary god; or rather, Nebuchadnezzar himself the personification and representative of the Babylonian empire, as suggested to him by the dream (Dan 2:38), "Thou art this head of gold." The interval between the dream and the event here was about nineteen years. Nebuchadnezzar had just returned from finishing the Jewish and Syrian wars, the spoils of which would furnish the means of rearing such a colossal statue [PRIDEAUX]. The colossal size makes it likely that the frame was wood, overlaid with gold. The "height," sixty cubits, is so out of proportion with the "breadth," exceeding it ten times, that it seems best to suppose the thickness from breast to back to be intended, which is exactly the right proportion of a well-formed man [AUGUSTINE, The City of God, 15.20]. PRIDEAUX thinks the sixty cubits refer to the image and pedestal together, the image being twenty-seven cubits high, or forty feet, the pedestal thirty-three cubits, or fifty feet. HERODOTUS [1.183] confirms this by mentioning a similar image, forty feet high, in the temple of Belus at Babylon. It was not the same image, for the one here was on the plain of Dura, not in the city.

coats . . . hosen . . . hats--HERODOTUS [1.195] says that the Babylonian costume consisted of three parts: (1) wide, long pantaloons; (2) a woollen shirt; (3) an outer mantle with a girdle round it. So these are specified [GESENIUS], "their pantaloons, inner tunics (hosen, or stockings, are not commonly worn in the East), and outer mantles." Their being cast in so hurriedly, with all their garments on, enhanced the miracle in that not even the smell of fire passed on their clothes, though of delicate, inflammable material.

Daniel's Three Friends in the Fiery Furnace - Daniel 3:1-30 Nebuchadnezzar commanded a colossal golden image to be set up in the plain of Dura at Babylon, and summoned all his high officers of state to be present at its consecration. He caused it to be proclaimed by a herald, that at a given signal all should fall down before the image and do it homage, and that whosoever refused to do so would be cast into a burning fiery furnace (Dan 3:1-7). This ceremony having been ended, it was reported to the king by certain Chaldeans that Daniel's friends, who had been placed over the province of Babylon, had not done homage to the image; whereupon, being called to account by the king, they refused to worship the image because they could not serve his gods (Dan 3:8-18). For this opposition to the king's will they were cast, bound in their clothes, into the burning fiery furnace. They were uninjured by the fire; and the king perceived with terror that not three, but four men, were walking unbound and uninjured in the furnace (Dan 3:19-27). Then he commanded them to come out; and when he found them wholly unhurt, he not only praised their God who had so wonderfully protected them, but also commanded, on the pain of death, all the people of his kingdom not to despise this God (Dan 3:28-30). The lxx and Theodotion have placed the date of this event in the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar, apparently only because they associated the erection of this statue with the taking of Jerusalem under Zedekiah, although that city was not taken and destroyed till the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar (Kg2 25:8.). But though it is probable that Nebuchadnezzar, after he had firmly established his world-kingdom by the overthrow of all his enemies, first felt himself moved to erect this image as a monument of his great exploits and of his world-power; yet the destruction of the capital of Judea, which had been already twice destroyed, can hardly be regarded as having furnished a sufficient occasion for this. This much, however, is certain, that the event narrated in this chapter occurred later than that of the 2nd chapter, since Dan 3:12 and Dan 3:30 refer to Dan 2:49; and on the other hand, that they occurred earlier than the incident of the 4th chapter, in which there are many things which point to the last half of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, while the history recorded in the chapter before us appertains more to the middle of his reign, when Nebuchadnezzar stood on the pinnacle of his greatness. The circumstance that there is no longer found in the king any trace of the impression which the omnipotence and infinite wisdom of the God of the Jews, as brought to view in the interpretation of his dream by Daniel, made upon his mind (Daniel 2), affords no means of accurately determining the time of the occurrence here narrated. There is no need for our assuming, with Jerome, a velox oblivio veritatis, or with Calvin, the lapse of a considerable interval between the two events. The deportment of Nebuchadnezzar on this occasion does not stand in opposition to the statements made at the close of Daniel 2. The command that all who were assembled at the consecration of the image should all down before it and worship it, is to be viewed from the standpoint of the heathen king. It had no reference at all to the oppression of those who worshipped the God of the Jews, nor to a persecution of the Jews on account of their God. It only demanded the recognition of the national god, to whom the king supposed he owed the greatness of his kingdom, as the god of the kingdom, and was a command which the heathen subjects of Nebuchadnezzar could execute without any violence to their consciences. The Jews could not obey it, however, without violating the first precept of their law. But Nebuchadnezzar did not think on that. Disobedience to his command appeared to him as culpable rebellion against his majesty. As such also the conduct of Daniel's friends is represented to him by the Chaldean informers in Dan 3:12. The words of the informers, "The Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon have not regarded thee, O king; they serve not thy gods," etc., clearly show that they were rightly named (Dan 3:8) "accusers of the Jews," and that by their denunciation of them they wished only to expel the foreigners from their places of influence; and for this purpose they made use of the politico-national festival appointed by Nebuchadnezzar as a fitting opportunity. Hence we can understand Nebuchadnezzar's anger against those who disregarded his command; and his words, with which he pronounced sentence against the accused - "who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hand?" - are, judged of from the religious point of view of the Israelites, a blaspheming of God, but considered from Nebuchadnezzar's heathen standpoint, are only an expression of proud confidence in his own might and in that of his gods, and show nothing further than that the revelation of the living God in Daniel 2 had not permanently impressed itself on his heart, but had in course of time lost much of its influence over him. The conduct of Nebuchadnezzar toward the Jews, described in this chapter, is accordingly fundamentally different from the relation sustained by Antiochus Epiphanes towards Judaism; for he wished entirely to put an end to the Jewish form of worship. In the conduct of Daniel's friends who were accused before the king there is also not a single trace of the religious fanaticism prevalent among the Jews in the age of the Maccabees, who were persecuted on account of their fidelity to the law. Far from trusting in the miraculous help of God, they regarded it as possible that God, whom they served, would not save them, and they only declare that in no case will they reverence the heathen deities of the king, and do homage to the image erected by him (Dan 3:16.). The right apprehension of the historical situation described in this chapter is at complete variance with the supposition of the modern critics, that the narrative is unhistorical, and was invented for the purpose of affording a type for the relation of Antiochus Epiphanes to Judaism. The remarkable circumstance, that Daniel is not named as having been present at this festival (and he also would certainly not have done homage to the image), can of itself alone furnish no argument against the historical accuracy of the matter, although it cannot be explained on the supposition made by Hgstb., that Daniel, as president over the wise men, did not belong to the class of state-officers, nor by the assertion of Hitz., that Daniel did not belong to the class of chief officers, since according to Dan 2:49 he had transferred his office to his friends. Both suppositions are erroneous; cf. under Dan 2:49. But many other different possibilities may be thought of to account for the absence of all mention of Daniel's name. Either he may have been prevented for some reason from being present on the occasion, or he may have been present and may have refused to bow down before the image, but yet may only not have been informed against. In the latter case, the remark of Calvin, ut abstinuerint a Daniele ad tempus, quem sciebant magnifieri a Rege, would scarcely suffice, but we must suppose that the accusers had designed first only the overthrow of the three rulers of the province of Babylon. (Note: Kran.'s supposition also (p. 153), that Daniel, as president over the class of the wise men, claimed the right belonging to him as such, while in his secular office he could be represented by his Jewish associates, and thus was withdrawn from the circle of spectators and from the command laid upon them of falling down before the image, has little probability; for although it is not said that this command was laid upon the caste of the wise men, and even though it should be supposed that the priests were present at this festival as the directors of the religious ceremonial, and thus were brought under the command to fall down before the image, yet this can scarcely be supposed of the whole caste. But Daniel could not in conscience take part in this idolatrous festival, nor associate himself with the priests, nor as president of all the Magi withdraw into the background, so as to avoid the ceremony of doing homage of the image.) But the circumstance that Daniel, if he were present, did not employ himself in behalf of his friends, may be explained from the quick execution of Babylonish justice, provided some higher reason did not determine him confidently to commit the decision of the matter to the Lord his God. (Note: We have already in part noticed the arguments against the historical accuracy of the narrative presented by the opponents of the genuineness of the book, such as the giving of Greek names to the musical instruments, and the conduct of Antiochus Epiphanes in placing an idol-image on the altar of burnt-offering (pp. 34, 50). All the others are dealt with in the Exposition. The principal objection adduced is the miracle, on account of which alone Hitz. thinks himself warranted in affirming that the narrative has no historical reality.)

Of the different parts of clothing named, סרבּלין are not hose, short stockings, from which Hitz. concludes that the enumeration proceeds from the inner to the outer clothing. This remark, correct in itself, proves nothing as to the covering for the legs. This meaning is given to the word only from the New Persian shalwâr, which in the Arabic is sarâwîl; cf. Haug in Ew.'s bibl. Jahrbb. v. p. 162. But the word corresponds with the genuine Semitic word sirbal, which means tunica or indusium; cf. Ges. Thes. (Note: The lxx have omitted סרבּלין in their translation. Theodot. has rendered it by σαράβαρα, and the third-named piece of dress כּרבּלן by περικνημῖδες, which the lxx have rendered by τιάρας ἐπὶ τῶν κεφαλῶν. Theodoret explains it: περικνημῖδας δὲ τὰς καλουμένας ἀναξυρίδας λέγει. These are, according to Herod. vii. 161, the αναχυρίδες, i.e., braccae, worn by the Persians περὶ τὰ σκέλεα. Regarding Σαράβαρα Theodoret remarks: ἔστι Περσικῶν περιβολαίων εἴδη. Thus Theodot. and Theodor. expressly distinguish the σαράβαρα (סרבּלין) from the περικνημῖδες; but the false interpretation of סרבּלין by breeches has given rise to the confounding of that word with כּרבּלן, and the identification of the two, the περικνημῖδες being interpreted of covering for the feet; and the Vulg. translates the passage: "cum braccis suis et tiaris et calceamentis et vestibus," while Luther has "cloaks, shoes, and hats." This confounding of the two words was authorized by the Greek scholiasts, to which the admission of the Persian shalwâr into the Arabic saravilu may have contributed. In Suidas we find the right interpretation along with the false one when he says: Σαράβαρα ἐσθὴς Περσικὴ ἔνιοι δὲ λέγουσι βρακία. Hesychius, on the other hand, briefly explains σαράβαρα by βρακία, κνημῖδες, σκελέαι. Hence the word in the forms sarabara, siravara, saravara or saraballa, sarabela, is commonly used in the middle ages for hose, and has been transferred into various modern languages; cf. Gesen. Thes. p. 971.) p. 970, and Heb. Lex. s. v. Accordingly, סרבּלין denotes under-clothing which would be worn next the body as our shirt. פּטישׁיהון, for which the Keri uses the form פּטשׁיהון, corresponding to the Syriac petšayhūn, is explained in the Hebr. translation of the Chald. portions of Daniel by כּתנת, tunica, and is derived from פשׁט, expandit (by the transposition of the second and third radicals). Thus the Syriac word is explained by Syr. lexicographers. Theodotion's translation, τιάραι, is probably only hit upon from the similarity of the sound of the Greek πέτασος, the covering for the head worn by the ἔφηβοι. כּרבּלן are mantles, from כּרבּל, R. כּבל, to bind, to lay around, with r intercalated, which occurs Ch1 15:27 of the putting around or putting on of the מעיל (upper garment). לבוּשׁיהון are the other pieces of clothing (Aben Ezra and others), not mantles. For that לבוּשׁ was specially used of over-clothes (Hitz.) cannot be proved from Job 24:7 and Kg2 10:22. We have here, then, the threefold clothing which, according to Herodotus, i. 195, the Babylonians wore, namely, the סרבּלין, the κιθῶν ποδηνεκὴς λίνεος, the פּטישׁא worn above it, ἄλλον εἰρίνεον κιθῶνα, and the כּרבּלא thrown above that, χλανίδιον λευκόν; while under the word לבוּשׁיהון the other articles of clothing, coverings for the feet and the head, are to be understood. (Note: With the setting aside of the false interpretation we have disposed of the objection against the historical character of the narrative which v. Leng. and Hitz. have founded on the statement of Herodotus l.c., that the Babylonians wore no hose, but that they were first worn by the Persians, who adopted them from the Medes.) The separate articles of clothing, consisting of easily inflammable material, are doubtlessly mentioned with reference to the miracle that followed, that even these remained unchanged (Dan 3:27) in the fiery furnace. In the easily inflammable nature of these materials, namely, of the fine κιθῶν ποδηνεκὴς λίνεος, we have perhaps to seek the reason on account of which the accused were bound in their clothes, and not, as Theodoret and most others think, in the haste with which the sentence against them was carried out.