Daniel 3:26 Notes (2)
Notes from Various Sources
25. a divine being. Literally, “a son of God,” rightly understood in vs. 28 as an angel; cf. also vs. 26.
26. Most High. The Aramaic term, ʿillāyâ, corresponding to the Hebrew term, ʿelyôn. Since the latter word occurs in the older Scriptures as used not only by Israelites, but also by pagans in speaking of the true God, e.g. by Melchizedek (Gen 14:18–20), Balaam (Num 24:16), and the king of Babylon in Isa 14:14, our author does not consider it inappropriate in the mouth of Nebuchadnezzar; cf. 4:31.
27. came from them. However, Rosenthal (Handbook, Part I/2, p. 33) suggests the rendering, “clung to them”; cf. Targumic ʿadyâ, ʿadîtâ, “scab.”
VI. 3:26–27*. The Deliverance
■ 26*. servants of the Most High God: God is called “Most High” (עליא) repeatedly in Daniel 4 and also in 7:25*. אל עליון is an ancient Hebrew title for God (Gen 14:18–20*, 22*, etc.).134 It is also attested in the Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: “a certain Elioun, called Most High.”135 The Greek equivalent, ὕψιστος, was widely used as a divine title by both Jews and Gentiles in the Hellenistic period.
■ 27*. the satraps,…: The first three terms occur in v 3*, the fourth at v 24*.
whose trousers were not damaged: Montgomery reasons that the garment in question must be the main garment, therefore the mantle, but this is not necessarily so. Any garment would illustrate the point here.
3:26 Probably in order to get a better look and so that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego could hear him, Nebuchadnezzar came near the opening of the furnace and shouted for the Hebrews to come out of the fire and appear before him. The king was now convinced that Yahweh, the God of Israel, was truly great, “the Most High God.” Yet this faith in Yahweh was well within the scope of pagan, polytheistic religious concepts, for the king merely considered Yahweh the great God (at least for the present) among many.
24–26. Instead of three men bound, Nebuchadrezzar sees four men loose. The fourth is like a son of the gods or ‘godlike’, despite his apparent humanity, and it dawns on the king that there is a God who can deliver out of his hand. The three men are free to make their way to him out of the furnace at his command.
The Miracle and the Royal Testimony (vv. 26–30)
The preceding discussion anticipates the claim made by generations of preachers and artists, the actual miracle account itself (vv. 26–30). They traditionally understood the emergence of the young men from the fiery furnace as a paradigm of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the grave. If by paradigm one means some kind of secret message about that coming event intrinsic to the text which can be made available by the use of allegory, we shall perforce have to part company with them. However, the reappearance of the three young men from the vale of death once again does provide quite an adequate functional analogue to the experience of Jesus and of those who were witnesses to his resurrection on the third day. If, however, we can understand the resurrection of Jesus as the anti-type of this prototype, then we must recognize that the anti-type or counterpart exceeds the prototype. Unlike the three young men, Jesus was dead, buried, and—as the creed understands it—descended into Hades. The three young men, while experiencing fire like hell, never died and thus never achieved the full experience of human suffering and tragedy which would have identified them with the human tragedy in its ultimate forms of death and destruction.
At the conclusion of this panel Nebuchadnezzar straight-forwardly and instantly leaps to an acknowledgment of God’s power. The God of the Jews can deliver; this thematic word resonates to its first use in the king’s sarcastic question (v. 15), and to the tentative but faithful use of it in the testimony of the Jews (v. 17). It will resonate again in Daniel’s own trial by lions in chapter 6 and finally at the moment of universal divine deliverance (12:1). His use of the epithet “Most High God” (v. 26) is not necessarily a statement of faith, but rather is a respectful acknowledgment known in extra-biblical literature and even in the mouths of pagan seers: Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18–20) and Balaam (Num. 24:16), of a demon-possessed person (Mark 5:7), and a pagan slave girl (Acts 16:17). In his benediction (v. 28), however, the king assumes that the virtue in the piece is God’s and he responds to that virtue in a way which, while a bit bellicose to our taste (his threat to anyone who speaks against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego with being “torn limb from limb, and their houses laid in ruins” [v. 29], tends toward overkill!) is nonetheless thoroughly sincere. He does not identify the God of the Jews as his god, but at least he acknowledges God’s reality and undoubtedly in so doing declares Judaism a legal religion to be tolerated in his realm. What more could Jews have asked from Nebuchadnezzar or—above all—Antiochus IV Epiphanes (cf. 1 Macc. 1:41–50)?
A Theological Assessment of Daniel 3
King Nebuchadnezzar himself assesses the work of God in this story (v. 28): “Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who has sent his angel and delivered his servants.” It is the work of God which leads Nebuchadnezzar in the subsequent verses to acknowledge the transcendent power and dominion of the God of Israel. But what about the work of God’s servants, the “interim ethics” which they practiced? The work of God is not connected by any subordinating conjunction to the activity of the three young men. God did not act because of their trust. Rather the work which the three young men did is merely the predicate which describes them more fully. They are the servants, “who trusted in him, and set at nought the king’s command, and yielded up their bodies rather than serve and worship any god except their own God” (v. 28). This threefold assessment by Nebuchadnezzar of the discipline of these three young men refers to the events earlier in the story. They trusted in God even though they had to hope against hope that God would deliver them (v. 17). They set at nought the king’s command in their categorical refusal to serve the golden image or the gods of Nebuchadnezzar (v. 18). They yielded up their bodies rather than worship any other god (v. 21).
We can understand and honor the work of the three young men. But what about God’s work of deliverance? Is this story too facile in its optimistic expectation that God will deliver the saints from the furnace? Is the victorious outcome too predetermined to seem credible to a generation which has known the failure of both God and humankind to deliver the saints from the ovens of the crematoria? The answer to both of these questions surely must be No, for the stand of the three young men on principle was taken without hope of deliverance but for the sake of fidelity to the will of God as they understood it. That is why verses 16–18 are such a crucial element in this passage. Furthermore, the deliverance which God effects for these saints is not presented as a direct reward for their faithfulness; rather, as Nebuchadnezzar puts it so carefully (v. 28), it is an act of faithfulness on God’s part which is parallel to but not triggered by the faithfulness on the part of the three young men. From the human point of view, therefore, this chapter is a story about faithfulness carried out for its own sake, about martyrdom by those willing to make sacrifice for principle, confident that in some way this sacrifice will be vindicated, even though how that way might come to pass is left entirely in God’s hands. From the side of God’s nature, this story tells about a God who has, in fact, that which Nebuchadnezzar doubts (v. 15), namely, the ability to deliver the servants from the fire in Babylon. We cannot insist that the deliverance come precisely in this miraculous and happy manner, but neither did the three young men (though the prophets and singers who went before had spoken of the deliverance of God’s people from the fire; cf. Isa. 43:2; Ps. 66:12). Nevertheless, the faith that God can deliver and can be trusted and will be vindicated is a faith which is appropriate for living in between the times; and if, in the terrible circumstances in which we now live, threatened with extinction not at God’s hands but our own, we have yet to wait a while to see the full vindication of God’s power to deliver his world from the hands of demonic forces that dwell within the collective human heart, then wait we shall. This story encourages us to be about our tasks of faithfulness and our great refusals, so that we do as little as possible to participate in the destructive tendency of human against human and so that we do as much as we can to demonstrate that those who are clear about their own identity as disciples can stand up against the glowering powers which require our allegiance to false and demonic claims. In the end, God’s way will be vindicated—that is the faith of this chapter. Indeed, it is the faith of the Book of Daniel, for, as Austin Farrer puts it, “the ultimate vindication and enthronement of the Saints over the whole world [cf. Dan. 7:27] is prefigured in the miraculous deliverance of the three children from the furnace, in the king’s recognition of their God, and in his promotion of them over the affairs of Babylon (A Study in Saint Mark, p. 253; cited by Ford, Daniel, p. 210).” And though we may go to the wall before the firing squad or into the heart of a fire storm, we can make such events meaningful, not absurd, by facing them squarely and denying on principle the right of the powers of this world to deflect us from the ways of justice and peace.
26. the most high God—He acknowledges Jehovah to be supreme above other gods (not that he ceased to believe in these); so he returns to his original confession, “your God is a God of gods” (Da 2:47), from which he had swerved in the interim, perhaps intoxicated by his success in taking Jerusalem, whose God he therefore thought unable to defend it.
Verses 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 v. 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. vār, “possessor, owner,” as in דְּרָבְרִין and נְּדָבְרִין, v. 2. In regard to Ewald’s attempt to identify the terms הֲדָבַר and גְּדָבַר directly, see supra, on v. 2. Compare generally the repeated mention of these prominent royal officials, in v. 27; chap. 4:33; 6:8.—Verse 25. Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire. מַהְלְכִין is a regular part. Aphel, as in 4:34; Cf. the Chaldaizing מַחְלְכִים in the Heb. of Zech. 3:7. In opposition to Hitzig, who regards the form as a metamorphosed part. Pael, basing his opinion on chap. 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 vs. 12 and 18) in company with the three Jews, was an objective seeing. It must be observed, that here as well as in v. 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 v. 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 v. 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.—Verse 26. Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace. On תְּרַע, see on v. 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, chap. 2:47; also the Gr. ῦψιστος θεός, as applied to Zeus by Pindar, Nem. 1:90.—אֱלָא עִלָּיָא corresponds exactly to the Hebrew אֵל עֶלְיוֹן, Gen. 14:18. Instead of עִלָּיָּא the Keri has עַלָּאָח in this place, chap. 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 chap. 2:5 and 40.
3:26
Door: if this word is taken in its more restricted sense, it may be misleading. According to some interpreters this was an opening at the top of the furnace or oven, but others see it as an opening in the side. NAB and AB have “opening,” while NJB and at translate “the mouth” of the furnace. A side opening would certainly make it easier for the men on the inside to come forth.
Said: the context seems to require more than a bland, literal rendering of this verb. Something like “shouted” or “yelled” is probably called for in many languages.
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego: the three names are cited twice in this verse. It is probably best to translate them in the first occurrence, since they are vocatives. However, when the narrative resumes, many translators will probably want to change to the pronoun “they” as in TEV, or to say something like “all three of them” (FRCL).
The Most High God: although this title is used in the Psalms, elsewhere it is found only on the lips of non—Jews (Gen 14:18; Num 24:16 and Isa 14:14) as a name for the God of Israel. It expresses the greatness of this God without necessarily stressing that he is greater than all other gods. For this reason some object to the rendering “the Supreme God” in TEV.
Come forth and come here: these two imperatives are not to be thought of as separate and distinct commands. Rather they have the combined force of the idiomatic English “come out here,” urging the men to leave the place where they were in order to come to the place where the king was. Naturalness in the translator’s language should be the determining factor as to whether one or two imperatives are used in translation.
Then: note that TEV adds “at once” at the end of the sentence in order to make the narrative more vivid. This can be justified on the grounds that the transition word at the beginning of the sentence may carry this sense.
Ver. 26.—Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spake and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, ye servants of the Most High God, come forth and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, came forth of the midst of the fire. The variations of the Septuagint Version here are inconsiderable. Instead of “spake and said,” it renders, “called them by name,” and omits the second repetition of the names, and the pleonastic “come hither;” instead of “Most High God,” it has “God of gods Most High.” Theodotion is in closer agreement with the Massoretic text; the only difference is that “spake” is omitted. The Peshitta and Vulgate are in exact accordance with the Massoretic. The distinction between נְפַק and אֲתָה is “go out” and “come.” It is well rendered in our Authorized Version, only there was no need of “hither” being put in italics. As above mentioned, this shows the form of the furnace to be not unlike our own—open at the top, but having a door at the side. It was to this side door that the king approached. The fact that Nebuchadnezzar acknowledges Jehovah to be “Most High God” does not imply any recognition of his supreme Divinity, any more than a king of France acknowledged the supremacy of the head of the Holy Roman Empire, when in the credentials of his ambassador the emperor was called Dominus urbis et orbis. It was simply a matter of what we may call religious etiquette to address gods of the higher class as “god of gods,” and “god most high.” In ch. 2:47 Nebuchadnezzar had already declared the God of Daniel to be “God of gods.” It is not impossible that to the Babylonians ‘illa‘a might have the appearance of a proper name.
3:26–27 Unbowed and Unburned
Nebuchadnezzar goes to the door of the furnace of blazing fire and calls to the three, Servants of the Most High God, come out! Come here!
Once again Nebuchadnezzar is faced by the kingdom of God. In his dream (2:1–49), a stone pulverized the great statue and then filled the whole earth. Now Nebuchadnezzar’s gleaming statue of gold is designed to unify his kingdom and to serve as a monument to his power and pride, but it pales in significance. In the furnace beside the statue, the Most High God is at work delivering his own.
The tyrant is defeated on the ground of his own choosing. What God is able to deliver? The answer is found on Nebuchadnezzar’s lips. It is the Most High God (3:26). In Daniel, this title first appears here and is used by non-Jews (4:2, 17, 34) as well as Jews (4:24–25, 32; 5:18, 21; 7:18–27). The name was used by Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18–20), Balaam (Num. 24:16), and Isaiah (Isa. 14:14). The Most High is the one who controls history (Deut. 32:8). The title is for a God of universal reign. For the pagan, it means the highest among many gods. For the Jew, it is the God of Israel.
When the three come out of the furnace, they are examined by the officials. The fire has had no power over their bodies, their hair, or their clothing! There is not even the odor of fire. Only Nebuchadnezzar’s ropes are burned and gone. Thus the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego turns the promise of Isaiah 43:2 into an easily grasped human experience. The three were not alone, not even in flames. Their experience illustrates the promise of safekeeping (Ps. 34:7; 91:11).