Daniel 3 commentary

DANIEL 3 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
The Image of Gold and the Blazing Furnace
1 King Nebuchadnezzar made an image of gold,
sixty cubits high and six cubits wide,[a] and set it
up on the plain of Dura in the province of
Babylon.
BARNES, "Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold - The time
when he did this is not mentioned; nor is it stated in whose honor, or for
what design, this colossal image was erected. In the Greek and Arabic
translationns, this is said to have occurred in the eighteenth year of
Nebuchadnezzar. This is not, however, in the original text, nor is it known
on what authority it is asserted. Dean Prideaux (Consex. I. 222) supposes
that it was at first some marginal comment on the Greek version that at last
crept into the text, and that there was probably some good authority for it. If
this is the correct account of the time, the event here recorded occurred 587
b.c., or, according to the chronology of Prideaux, about nineteen years after
the transaction recorded in the previous chapter. Hales makes the
chronology somewhat different, though not essentially. According to him,
Daniel was carried to Babylon 586 b.c., and the image was set up 569 b.c.,
making an interval from the time that he was carried to Babylon of
seventeen years; and if the dream Dan. 2 was explained within three or four
years after Daniel was taken to Babylon, the interval between that and this
occurrence would be some thirteen or fourteen years.
Calmet makes the captivity of Daniel 602 years before Christ; the
interpretation of the dream 598; and the setting up of the image 556 - thus
making an interval of more than forty years. It is impossible to determine
the time with certainty; but allowing the shortest-mentioned period as the
interval between the interpretation of the dream Dan. 2 and the erection of
this statue, the time would be sufficient to account for the fact that the
impression made by that event on the mind of Nebuchadnezzar, in favor of
the claims of the true God Dan_2:46-47, seems to have been entirely
1

effaced. The two chapters, in order that the right impression may be
received on this point, should be read with the recollection that such an
interval had elapsed. At the time when the event here recorded is supposed
by Prideaux to have occurred, Nebuchadnezzar had just returned from
finishing the Jewish war.
From the spoils which he had taken in that expedition in Syria and
Palestine, he had the means in abundance of rearing such a colossal statue;
and at the close of these conquests, nothing would be more natural than
that he should wish to rear in his capital some splendid work of art that
would signalize his reign, record the memory of his conquests, and add to
the magnificence of the city. The word which is here rendered “image”
(Chaldee ‫צלם‬ tse
lēm - Greek εἰκόνα eikona), in the usual form in the Hebrew,
means a shade, shadow; then what shadows forth anything; then an image
of anything, and then an “idol,” as representing the deity worshipped. It is
not necessary to suppose that it was of solid gold, for the amount required
for such a structure would have been immense, and probably beyond the
means even of Nebuchadnezzar. The presumption is, that it was merely
covered over with plates of gold, for this was the usual manner in which
statues erected in honor of the gods were made. See Isa_40:19.
It is not known in honor of whom this statue was erected. Grotius
supposed that it was reared to the memory of Nabopolassar, the father of
Nebuchadnezzar, and observes that it was customary to erect statues in this
manner in honor of parents. Prideaux, Hales, the editor of the “Pict. Bible,”
and most others, suppose that it was in honor of Bel, the principal deity
worshipped in Babylon. See the notes at Isa_46:1. Some have supposed that
it was in honor of Nebuchadnezzar himself, and that he purposed by it to be
worshipped as a god. But this opinion has little probability in its favor. The
opinion that it was in honor of Bel, the principal deity of the place, is every
way the most probable, and this derives some confirmation from the well-
known fact that a magnificent image of this kind was, at some period of his
reign, erected by Nebuchadnezzar in honor of this god, in a style to
correspond with the magnificence of the city.
The account of this given by Herodotus is the following: “The temple of
Jupiter Belus, whose huge gates of brass may still be seen, is a square
building, each side of which is two furlongs. In the midst rises a tower, of
the solid depth and height of one furlong; upon which, resting as upon a
base, seven other lesser towers are built in regular succession. The ascent is
on the outside; which, winding from the ground, is continued to the highest
tower; and in the middle of the whole structure there is a convenient resting
place. In the last tower is a large chapel, in which is placed a couch,
magnificently adorned, and near it a table of solid gold; but there is no
statue in the place. In this temple there is also a small chapel, lower in the
building, which contains a figure of Jupiter, in a sitting posture, with a large
table before him; these, with the base of the table, and the seat of the
throne, are all of the purest gold, and are estimated by the Chaldeans to be
worth eight hundred talents.
On the outside of this chapel there are two altars; one is gold, the other is
of immense size, and appropriated to the sacrifice of full-grown animals;
2

those only which have not yet left their dams may be offered on the golden
altar. On the larger altar, at the anniversary festival in honor of their god,
the Chaldeans regularly consume incense to the amount of a thousand
talents. There was formerly in this temple a statue of solid gold twelve
cubits high; this, however, I mention from the information of the
Chaldeans, and not from my own knowledge.” - Clio, 183. Diodorus Siculus,
a much later writer, speaks to this effect: “Of the tower of Jupiter Belus, the
historians who have spoken have given different descriptions; and this
temple being now entirely destroyed, we cannot speak accurately respecting
it. It was excessively high; constructed throughout with great care; built of
brick and bitumen. Semiramis placed on the top of it three statues of massy
gold, of Jupiter, Juno, and Rhea. Jupiter was erect, in the attitude of a man
walking; he was forty feet in height; and weighed a thousand Babylonian
talents: Rhea, who sat in a chariot of gold, was of the same weight. Juno,
who stood upright, weighed eight hundred talents.” - B. ii.
The temple of Bel or Belus, in Babylon, stood until the time of Xerxes; but
on his return from the Grecian expedition, he demolished the whole of it,
and laid it in rubbish, having first plundered it of its immense riches.
Among the spoils which he took from the temple, are mentioned several
images and statues of massive gold, and among them the one mentioned by
Diodorus Siculus, as being forty feet high. See Strabo, lib. 16, p. 738;
Herodotus, lib. 1; Arrian “de Expe. Alex.” lib. 7, quoted by Prideaux I. 240. It
is not very probable that the image which Xerxes removed was the same
which Nebuchadnezzar reared in the plain of Dura - compare the
Introduction to this chapter, Section I. VII. (a); but the fact that such a
colossal statue was found in Babylon may be adduced as one incidental
corroboration of the probability of the statement here. It is not impossible
that Nebuchadnezzar was led, as the editor of Calmet’s “Dictionary” has
remarked (Taylor, vol. iii. p. 194), to the construction of this image by what
he had seen in Egypt. He had conquered and ravaged Egypt but a few years
before this, and had doubtless been struck with the wonders of art which he
had seen there.
Colossal statues in honor of the gods abounded, and nothing would be
more natural than that Nebuchadnezzar should wish to make his capital
rival everything which he had seen in Thebes. Nor is it improbable that,
while he sought to make his image more magnificent and costly than even
those in Egypt were, the views of sculpture would be about the same, and
the “figure” of the statue might be borrowed from what had been seen in
Egypt. See the statues of the two celebrated colossal figures of Amunoph III
standing in the plains of Goorneh, Thebes, one of which is known as the
Vocal Memnon. These colossi, exclusive of the pedestals (partially buried),
are forty-seven feet high, and eighteen feet three inches wide across the
shoulders, and according to Wilkinson are each of one single block, and
contain about 11,500 cubic feet of stone. They are made of a stone not
known within several days’ journey of the place where they are erected.
Calmet refers to these statues, quoting from Norden.
Whose height was threescore cubits - Prideaux and others have been
greatly perplexed at the “proportions” of the image here represented.
Prideaux says on the subject (Connections, I. 240, 241), “Nebuchadnezzars
3

golden image is said indeed in Scripture to have been sixty cubits, that is,
ninety feet high; but this must be understood of the image and pedestal both
together, for that image being said to be but six cubits broad or thick, it is
impossible that the image would have been sixty cubits high; for that makes
its height to be ten times its breadth or thickness, which exceeds all the
proportions of a man, no man’s height being above six times his thickness,
measuring the slenderest man living at the waist. But where the breadth of
this image was measured is not said; perchance it was from shoulder to
shoulder; and then the proportion of six cubits breadth will bring down the
height exactly to the measure which Diodorus has mentioned; for the usual
height of a man being four and a half of his breadth between the shoulders,
if the image were six cubits broad between the shoulders, it must, according
to this proportion, have been twenty-seven cubits high, which is forty and a
half feet.”
The statue itself, therefore, according to Prideaux, was forty feet high; the
pedestal fifty feet. But this, says Taylor, the editor of Calmet, is a
disproportion of parts which, if not absolutely impossible, is utterly
contradictory to every principle of art, even of the rudest sort. To meet the
difficulty, Taylor himself supposes that the height referred to in the
description was rather “proportional” than “actual” height; that is, if it had
stood upright it would have been sixty cubits, though the actual elevation in
a sitting posture may have been but little more than thirty cubits, or fifty
feet. The breadth, he supposes, was rather the depth or thickness measured
from the breast to the back, than the breadth measured from shoulder to
shoulder. His argument and illustration may be seen in Calmet, vol. iii.
Frag. 156. It is not absolutely certain, however, that the image was in a
sitting posture, and the “natural” constructsion of the passage is, that the
statue was actually sixty cubits in height.
No one can doubt that an image of that height could be erected; and when
we remember the one at Rhodes, which was 105 Grecian feet in height (see
art. “Colossus,” in Anthon’s “Class. Dict.”), and the desire of
Nebuchadnezzar to adorn his capital in the most magnificent manner, it is
not to be regarded as improbable that an image of this height was erected.
What was the height of the pedestal, if it stood on any, as it probably did, it
is impossible now to tell. The length of the “cubit” was not the same in every
place. The length originally was the distance between the elbow and the
extremity of the middle finger, about eighteen inches. The Hebrew cubit,
according to Bishop Cumberland and M. Pelletier, was twenty-one inches;
but others fix it at eighteen. - Calmet. The Talmudists say that the Hebrew
cubit was larger by one quarter than the Roman. Herodotus says that the
cubit in Babylon was three fingers longer than the usual one. - Clio, 178.
Still, there is not absolute certainty on that subject. The usual and probable
measurement of the cubit would make the image in Babylon about ninety
feet high.
And the breadth thereof six cubits - About nine feet. This would, of course,
make the height ten times the breadth, which Prideaux says is entirely
contrary to the usual proportions of a man. It is not known on what “part”
of the image this measurement was made, or whether it was the thickness
from the breast to the back, or the width from shoulder to shoulder. If the
4

“thickness” of the image here is referred to by the word “breadth,” the
proportion would be well preserved. “The thickness of a well-proportioned
man,” says Scheuchzer (Knupfer Bibel, in loc.), “measured from the breast
to the back is one-tenth of his height.” This was understood to be the
proportion by Augustine, Civi. Dei, 1. xv. c. 26. The word which is here
rendered “breadth” (‫פתי‬ pe
thay) occurs nowhere else in the Chaldean of the
Scriptures, except in Ezr_6:3 : “Let the house be builded, the height thereof
threescore cubits, and the “breadth” thereof threescore cubits.” Perhaps
this refers rather to the “depth” of the temple from front to rear, as Taylor
has remarked, than to the breadth from one side to another. If it does, it
would correspond with the measurement of Solomon’s temple, and it is not
probable that Cyrus would vary from that plan in his instructions to build a
new temple. If that be the true construction, then the meaning here may be,
as remarked above, that the image was of that “thickness,” and the breadth
from shoulder to shoulder may not be referred to.
He set it up in the plain of Dura - It would seem from this that it was set up
in an open plain, and not in a temple; perhaps not near a temple. It was not
unusual to erect images in this manner, as the colossal figure at Rhodes
shows. Where this plain was, it is of course impossible now to determine.
The Greek translation of the word is Δεειρᾷ Deeira - “Deeira.” Jerome says
that the translation of Theodotion is “Deira;” of Symmachus, Doraum; and
of the Septuagint. περίβολον peribolon - which he says may be rendered
“vivarium vel conclusum locum.” “Interpreters commonly,” says Gesenius,
“compare Dura, a city mentioned by Ammian. Marcel. 25. 6, situated on the
Tigris; and another of like name in Polyb. 5, 48, on the Euphrates, near the
mouth of the Chaboras.” It is not necessary to suppose that this was in the
“city” of Babylon; and, indeed, it is probable that it was not, as the “province
of Babylon” doubtless embraced more than the city, and an extensive plain
seems to have been selected, perhaps near the city, as a place where the
monument would be more conspicuous, and where larger numbers could
convene for the homage which was proposed to be shown to it.
In the province of Babylon - One of the provinces, or departments,
embracing the capital, into which the empire was divided, Dan_2:48.
CLARKE, "Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold - It is
supposed that the history given here did not occur till the close, or near the
end, of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. For it was after his insanity, as we see Dan_
4:33-36, and this happened near the close of his reign. The authorized
version, which is followed in the margin, fixes the date of this event
seventeen years earlier, and ten years before the king’s insanity. A few
observations on this image may be necessary: -
1. It is not likely that this image was in human form - the dimensions
show the improbability of this; for what proportion is there between
sixty cubits (ninety feet) in length, and six cubits (nine feet) in
breadth?
5

2. It is not likely that this image was all of gold; for this would have
required more of this precious metal than the whole province of
Babylon could produce; for as I suppose the sixty cubits apply to the
perpendicular altitude, so I take it for granted that the six cubits
intend the diameter. Now a column of gold of this height in diameter,
upon the supposition that the pillar was circular, contains five
thousand seven hundred and twenty-five and a half cubic feet; and as
there are nineteen thousand avoirdupois ounces in a cubic foot, the
weight of the whole pillar would be eight million two hundred and
sixty-two thousand eight hundred and six pounds, ten ounces of gold.
3. It might have been a pillar on which an image of the god Bel was
erected. The image itself might be of gold, or more probably gilt, that
is, covered with thin plates of gold, and on this account it might be
called the golden image; and most probably the height of the image
may be confounded with the height of the pillar. Or perhaps it was no
more than a pillar, on the sides of which their gods and sacred
emblems were engraven, surmounted with Bel on the top.
The plain of Dura - The situation of this place is not exactly known; there
was a town or city called Dura, or Doura, in Mesopotamia, near the Tigris.
GILL, "Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold,.... Not of solid
gold; but either of a plate of gold, and hollow within; or of wood overlaid
with gold; for otherwise it must have took up a prodigious quantity of gold
to make an image of such dimensions as follow; this be ordered his
statuaries or workmen to make for him; whether this image was for himself,
or his father Nabopolassar, or for his chief god Bel, or as a new deity, is not
easy to say; however, it was made for religious worship: the reasons that
moved him to it cannot be ascertained; it might be out of pride and vanity,
and to set forth the glory and stability of his monarchy, as if be was not only
the head of gold, but as an image all of gold; and to contradict the
interpretation of his dream, and avert the fate of his empire signified by it;
or to purge himself from the jealousies his subjects had entertained of him,
of relinquishing the religion of his country, and embracing the Jewish
religion, by his praise of the God of Israel, and the promotion of Jews to
places of trust and honour; or this might be done by the advice of his nobles,
to establish an uniformity of religion in his kingdom, and to prevent the
growth of Judaism; and it may be to lay a snare for Daniel and his
companions; of which we have an instance of the like kind in chapter six.
When this image was made is not certain; some think in a short time after
his dream before related; if so, he soon forgot it, and the God that had
revealed it. The Septuagint and Arabic versions place it in the eighteenth
year of his reign; and some are of opinion that it was after his victories over
the Jews, Tyre, Egypt, and others; and that being flushed therewith, in the
pride of his heart, ordered this image to be made; and out of the spoils he
brought with him from the various countries he had conquered. Mr.
Whiston (u) places this fact in the year of the world 3417 A.M., and before
Christ 587; and so Dr. Prideaux (w), who makes it to be in the eighteenth
6

year of Nebuchadnezzar, agreeably to the above versions. Mr. Bedford (x)
puts it in the year before Christ 585:
whose height was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof six cubits; a
common cubit being half a yard, it was thirty yards high, and three yards
broad; but Herodotus (y) says the king's cubit in Babylon was three fingers
larger than the usual one; and, according to that, this image must be thirty
five yards high, and three yards and a half broad; but since there is so great
a disproportion between the height and breadth, some have thought that
the height includes the pedestal on which it stood; and, allowing twelve
cubits for that, the height of the image was forty six cubits. Diodorus Siculus
(z) makes mention of a statue of gold in the temple of Belus, which Xerxes
demolished, which was forty feet high, and contained a thousand
Babylonish talents of gold, which, at the lowest computation, amounts to
three millions and a half of our money; which image Doctor Prideaux (a)
conjectures was this image of Nebuchadnezzar's; but this seems not likely,
since the one was between thirty and forty yards high, the other but thirteen
or fourteen; the one in the plain of Dura, the other in the temple of Bel:
he set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon; that so it might
be seen of all, and there might be room enough for a vast number of
worshippers together. The Septuagint version calls this place the plain of
Deeira, which some take to be the Deera of Ptolemy (b); but that is in the
province of Susiana; rather this is Duraba (c), which he places near the
river Euphrates, in the province of Babylon. Aben Ezra says, this is the place
where the children of Ephraim fell, and where the Chaldeans slew the Jews
when they came into captivity. In the Talmud (d) it is said,
"from the river Eshal unto Rabbath is the valley of Dura;''
in Arabic, "dauro" signifies "round"; it was a round valley. The Jews have a
notion that this was the valley in the land of Shinar where the tower of
Babel was built; and observe, that
"although the design of that generation was not accomplished, yet after
their times their punishment was made manifest, in that they said, "let us
make us a name", Gen_11:4 for Nebuchadnezzar having wasted and
subverted many kingdoms, and destroyed the sanctuary, thought it possible
to put in execution the wicked design of the age of the dispersion; hence it is
said, Dan_3:1, "King Nebuchadnezzar made an image, &c. and set it up",
‫דורא‬ ‫,בבקעת‬ "in the valley of generation", in the province of Babylon, which
is the valley spoken of in Gen_11:2 what therefore they could not do, he
attempted to do; hence he gathered all the people to worship the image,
which agrees with Gen_11:4, for he put a certain vessel of the vessels of the
temple on the mouth of it (the image), on which was engraven the divine
name, that he might render ineffectual the intention of the dispersed
generation but the Scripture says, Jer_51:44, "and I will punish Bel in
Babylon, and I will bring forth out of his mouth that which he hath
swallowed up, and the nations shall not flow together any more unto him";
7

for Daniel came and caused that vessel that was swallowed to be taken out
of the mouth of the image, whence it fell, and was broke to pieces, which is
the same as that in Gen_11:4 (e).''
HENRY 1-3, "We have no certainty concerning the date of this story, only
that if this image, which Nebuchadnezzar dedicated, had any relation to that
which he dreamed of, it is probable that it happened not long after that;
some reckon it to be about the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar, a year
before Jehoiachin's captivity, in which Ezekiel was carried away. Observe,
I. A golden image set up to be worshipped. Babylon was full of idols
already, yet nothing will serve this imperious prince but they must have one
more; for those who have forsaken the one only living God, and begin to set
up many gods, will find the gods they set up so unsatisfying, and their desire
after them so insatiable, that they will multiply them without measure,
wander after them endlessly, and never know when they have sufficient.
Idolaters are fond of novelty and variety. They choose new gods. Those that
have many will wish to have more. Nebuchadnezzar the king, that he might
exert the prerogative of his crown, to make what god he thought fit, set up
this image, Dan_3:1. Observe, 1. The valuableness of it; it was an image of
gold, not all gold surely; rich as he was, it is probable that he could not
afford that, but overlaid with gold. Note, The worshippers of false gods are
not wont to mind charges in setting up images and worshipping them; they
lavish gold out of the bag for that purpose (Isa_46:6), which shames our
niggardliness in the worship of the true God. 2. The vastness of it; it was
threescore cubits high and six cubits broad. It exceeded the ordinary
stature of a man fifteen times (for that is reckoned but four cubits, or six
feet), as if its being monstrous would make amends for its being lifeless. But
why did Nebuchadnezzar set up this image? Some suggest that it was to
clear himself from the imputation of having turned a Jew, because he had
lately spoken with great honour of the God of Israel and had preferred some
of his worshippers. Or perhaps he set it up as an image of himself, and
designed to be himself worshipped in it. Proud princes affected to have
divine honours paid them; Alexander did so, pretending himself to be the
son of Jupiter Olympius. He was told that in the image he had seen in his
dream he was represented by the head of gold, which was to be succeeded
by kingdoms of baser metal; but here he sets up to be himself the whole
image, for he makes it all of gold. See here, (1.) How the good impressions
that were then made upon him were quite lost, and quickly. He then
acknowledged that the God of Israel is of a truth a God of gods and a Lord of
kings; and yet now, in defiance of the express law of that God, he sets up an
image to be worshipped, not only continues in his former idolatries, but
contrives new ones. Note, Strong convictions often come short of a sound
conversion. Many a pang have owned the absurdity and dangerousness of
sin, and yet have gone on in it. (2.) How that very dream and the
interpretation of it, which then made such good impressions upon him, now
had a quite contrary effect. Then it made him fall down as a humble
worshipper of God; now it made him set up for a bold competitor with God.
Then he thought it a great thing to be the golden head of the image, and
owned himself obliged to God for it; but, his mind rising with his condition,
8

now he thinks that too little, and, in contradiction to God himself and his
oracle, he will be all in all.
JAMISON, "Dan_3:1-30. Nebuchadnezzar’s idolatrous image; Shadrach,
Meshach, and Abed-nego are delivered from the furnace.
Between the vision of Nebuchadnezzar in the second chapter and that of
Daniel in the seventh, four narratives of Daniel’s and his friends’ personal
history are introduced. As the second and seventh chapters go together, so
the third and sixth chapters (the deliverance from the lions’ den), and the
fourth and fifth chapters. Of these last two pairs, the former shows God’s
nearness to save His saints when faithful to Him, at the very time they seem
to be crushed by the world power. The second pair shows, in the case of the
two kings of the first monarchy, how God can suddenly humble the world
power in the height of its insolence. The latter advances from mere self-
glorification, in the fourth chapter, to open opposition to God in the fifth.
Nebuchadnezzar demands homage to be paid to his image (Dan_3:1-6), and
boasts of his power (Dan_4:1-18). But Belshazzar goes further, blaspheming
God by polluting His holy vessels. There is a similar progression in the
conduct of God’s people. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego refuse positive
homage to the image of the world power (Dan_3:12); Daniel will not yield it
even a negative homage, by omitting for a time the worship of God (Dan_
6:10). Jehovah’s power manifested for the saints against the world in
individual histories (the third through sixth chapters) is exhibited in the
second and seventh chapters, in world-wide prophetical pictures; the
former heightening the effect of the latter. The miracles wrought in behalf
of Daniel and his friends were a manifestation of God’s glory in Daniel’s
person, as the representative of the theocracy before the Babylonian king,
who deemed himself almighty, at a time when God could not manifest it in
His people as a body. They tended also to secure, by their impressive
character, that respect for the covenant-people on the part of the heathen
powers which issued in Cyrus’ decree, not only restoring the Jews, but
ascribing honor to the God of heaven, and commanding the building of the
temple (Ezr_1:1-4) [Auberlen].
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
9

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, 15.26]. 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.
K&D, "The erection and consecration of the golden image, and the
accusation brought against Daniel's friends, that they had refused to obey
the king's command to do homage to this image.
Dan_3:1
Nebuchadnezzar commanded a golden image to be erected, of threescore
cubits in height and six cubits in breadth. ‫ם‬ ֵ‫ל‬ ְ‫צ‬ is properly an image in
human likeness (cf. Dan_2:31), and excludes the idea of a mere pillar or an
obelisk, for which ‫ה‬ ָ‫ב‬ֵ‫צּ‬ ַ‫מ‬ would have been the appropriate word. Yet from
the use of the word ‫ם‬ ֵ‫ל‬ ְ‫צ‬ it is not by any means to be concluded that the
image was in all respects perfectly in human form. As to the upper part - the
head, countenance, arms, breast - it may have been in the form of a man,
and the lower part may have been formed like a pillar. This would be
altogether in accordance with the Babylonian art, which delighted in
grotesque, gigantic forms; cf. Hgstb. Beitr. i. p. 96f. The measure, in height
threescore cubits, in breadth six cubits, is easily explained, since in the
human figure the length is to be breadth in the proportion of about six to
one. In the height of threescore cubits the pedestal of the image may be
regarded as included, so that the whole image according to its principal
component part (a potiori) was designated as ‫ם‬ ֵ‫ל‬ ְ‫;צ‬ although the passage
Jdg_18:30-31, adduced by Kran., where mention is made of the image alone
which was erected by Micah, without any notice being taken of the pedestal
belonging to it (cf. Jdg_18:17 and Jdg_18:18), furnishes no properly
authentic proof that ‫ל‬ ֶ‫ס‬ ֶ‫פּ‬ in Jdg_18:30 and Jdg_18:31 denotes the image
with the pedestal. The proportion between the height and the breadth
justifies, then, in no respect the rejection of the historical character of the
narrative. Still less does the mass of gold necessary for the construction of
so colossal an image, since, as has been already mentioned, according to the
Hebrew modes of speech, we are not required to conceive of the figure as
having been made of solid gold, and since, in the great riches of the ancient
world, Nebuchadnezzar in his successful campaigns might certainly
accumulate an astonishing amount of this precious metal. The statements of
Herodotus and Diodorus regarding the Babylonian idol-images,
(Note: According to Herod. i. 183, for the great golden image of Belus,
which was twelve cubits high, and the great golden table standing before
it, the golden steps and the golden chair, only 800 talents of gold were
10

used; and according to Diod. Sic. ii. 9, the golden statue, forty feet high,
placed in the temple of Belus consisted of 1000 talents of gold, which
would have been not far from sufficient if these objects had been formed
of solid gold. Diod. also expressly says regarding the statue, that it was
made with the hammer, and therefore was not solid. Cf. Hgstb. Beitr. i.
p. 98, and Kran. in loco.)
as well as the description in Isa_40:19 of the construction of idol-images,
lead us to think of the image as merely overlaid with plates of gold.
The king commanded this image to be set up in the plain of Dura in the
province of Babylon. The ancients make mention of two places of the name
of Dura, the one at the mouth of the Chaboras where it empties itself into
the Euphrates, not far from Carchemish (Polyb. v. 48; Ammian. Marc. xxiii.
5, 8, xxiv. 1, 5), the other beyond the Tigris, not far from Apollonia (Polyb. v.
52; Amm. Marc. xxv. 6, 9). Of these the latter has most probability in its
favour, since the former certainly did not belong to the province of Babylon,
which according to Xenophon extended 36 miles south of Tiphsach (cf.
Nieb. Gesch. Assurs, S. 421). The latter, situated in the district of Sittakene,
could certainly be reckoned as belonging to the province of Babylon, since
according to Strabo, Sittakene, at least in the Old Parthian time, belonged to
Babylon (Nieb. p. 420). But even this place lay quite too far from the capital
of the kingdom to be the place intended. We must, without doubt, much
rather seek for this plain in the neighbourhood of Babylon, where,
according to the statement of Jul. Oppert (Expéd. Scientif. en Mésopotamie,
i. p. 238ff.), there are at present to be found in the S.S.E. of the ruins
representing the former capital a row of mounds which bear the name of
Dura, at the end of which, along with two larger mounds, there is a smaller
one which is named el Mokattat (=la colline alignée), which forms a square
six metres high, with a basis of fourteen metres, wholly built en briques
crues (Arab. lbn), which shows so surprising a resemblance to a colossal
statue with its pedestal, that Oppert believes that this little mound is the
remains of the golden statue erected by Nebuchadnezzar.
(Note: “On seeing this mound,” Oppert remarks (l. c. p. 239), “one is
immediately struck with the resemblance which it presents to the
pedestal of a colossal statue, as, for example, that of Bavaria near
Münich, and everything leads to the belief that the statue mentioned in
the book of Daniel (Dan_3:1) was set up in this place. The fact of the
erection by Nebuchadnezzar of a colossal statue has nothing which can
cause astonishment, however recent may have been the Aramean form
of the account of Scripture.” Oppert, moreover, finds no difficulty in the
size of the statue, but says regarding it: “There is nothing incredible in
the existence of a statue sixty cubits high and six cubits broad; moreover
the name of the plain of Dura, in the province (‫ָה‬‫נ‬‫י‬ ִ‫ד‬ ְ‫)מ‬ of Babylon, agrees
also with the actual conformation of the ruin.”)
There is a difference of opinion as to the signification of this image.
According to the common view (cf. e.g., Hgstb. Beitr. i. p. 97),
Nebuchadnezzar wished to erect a statue as an expression of his thanks to
his god Bel for his great victories, and on that account also to consecrate it
with religious ceremonies. On the other hand, Hofm. (Weiss. u. Erf. i. p.
11

277) remarks, that the statue was not the image of a god, because a
distinction is made between falling down to it and the service to his god
which Nebuchadnezzar required (Dan_3:12, Dan_3:14, Dan_3:18) from his
officers of state. This distinction, however, is not well supported; for in
these verses praying to the gods of Nebuchadnezzar is placed on an equality
with falling down before the image. But on the other hand, the statue is not
designated as the image of a god, or the image of Belus; therefore we agree
with Klief. in his opinion, that the statue was a symbol of the world-power
established by Nebuchadnezzar, so that falling down before it was a
manifestation of reverence not only to the world-power, but also to its gods;
and that therefore the Israelites could not fall down before the image,
because in doing so they would have rendered homage at the same time also
to the god or gods of Nebuchadnezzar, in the image of the world-power. But
the idea of representing the world-power founded by him as a ‫ם‬ ֵ‫ל‬ ְ‫צ‬ was
probably suggested to Nebuchadnezzar by the tselem seen (Daniel 2) by him
in a dream, whose head of gold his world-kingdom was described to him as
being. We may not, however, with Klief., seek any sanction for the idea that
the significance off the image is in its size, 6, 10, and six multiplied by ten
cubits, because the symbolical significance of the number 6 as the signature
of human activity, to which the divine completion (7) is wanting, is not a
Babylonian idea. Still less can we, with Zündel (p. 13), explain the absence
of Daniel on this occasion as arising from the political import of the statue,
because the supposition of Daniel's not having been called to be present is a
mere conjecture, and a very improbable conjecture; and the supposition
that Daniel, as being chief of the Magi, would not be numbered among the
secular officers of state, is decidedly erroneous.
CALVIN, "Very probably this statue was not erected by King Nebuchadnezzar
within a short period, as the Prophet does not notice how many years had passed
away; for it is not probable that it was erected within a short time after he had
confessed the God of Israel to be the Supreme Deity. Yet as the Prophet is silent, we
need not discuss the matter. Some of the rabbis think this statue to have been
erected as an expiation; as if Nebuchadnezzar wished to avert the effect of his dream
by this charm, as they say. But their guess is most frivolous. We may inquire,
however, whether Nebuchadnezzar deified himself or really erected this statue to
Bel the principal deity of the Chaldeans, or invented some new-fangled divinity?
Many incline to the opinion that he wished to include himself in the number of the
deities, but this is not certain — at least I do not think so. Nebuchadnezzar seems to
me rather to have consecrated this statue to some of the deities; but, as superstition
is always joined with ambition and pride, very likely Nebuchadnezzar was also
induced by vain glory and luxury to erect this statue. As often as the superstitious
incur expense in building temples and in fabricating idols, if any one asks them their
object, they immediately reply — they do it in honor of God! At the same time they
are all promoting their own fame and reputation. All the superstitious reckon God’s
worship valueless, and rather wish to acquire for themselves favor and estimation
among men. I readily admit this to have been Nebuchadnezzar’s intention, and
indeed I am nearly certain of it. But at the same time some pretense to piety was
12

joined with it; for he pretended that he wished to worship God. Hence, also, what I
formerly mentioned appears more clear, namely, — King Nebuchadnezzar was not
truly and heartily converted, but rather remained fixed in his own errors, when he
was attributing glory to the God of Israel. As I have already said, that confession of
his was limited, and he now betrays what he nourished in his heart; for when he
erected the statue he did not return to his own natural disposition, but; rather his
impiety, which was hidden for a time, was then detected. For that remarkable
confession could not be received as a proof of change of mind. All therefore would
have said he was a new man, if God had not wished it to be made plain that he was
held bound and tied by the chains of Satan, and was still a slave to his own errors.
God wished then to present this example to manifest Nebuchadnezzar to be always
impious, although through compulsion he gave some glory to the God of Israel.
ELLICOTT, "An important addition appears in both Greek Versions of Daniel, in
accordance with which the event recorded in this chapter took place in the
eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar. Whence the tradition arose cannot be
ascertained. It was certainly unknown to Josephus. It has been supposed that the
date was added by the translators, on account of their supposing the erection of the
image to be connected with the taking of Jerusalem. However, this is improbable, as
the siege itself was not finished till the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings
25:8). It has also been conjectured that the statue was one of the king himself,
erected in commemoration of some great victories recently won by him. This is not
impossible; but, partly from the mention of the sacred numbers, 6, 60, partly from
the language of Daniel 3:12; Daniel 3:14; Daniel 3:18; Daniel 3:20, it appears more
probable that the image was erected in honour of some god. There is no doubt (see
Records of the Past, vol. v., p. 113) that this king did erect an image of Bel
Merodach. Possibly we have in this chapter a parallel account of the dedication of
the image.
EXCURSUS B: THE MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS MENTIONED IN Daniel 3.
THE Babylonians as a nation appear to have been remarkably fond of music. Isaiah
(Isaiah 14:11) speaks of the noise of the viols of Babylon as forming part of her
pomp, and it may be presumed that the desire of the Babylonians to hear some of
the strains of Zion (Psalms 137:2-3) was not uttered in mockery, but from a genuine
wish, such as all persons have who really care for music at all, to hear the melodies
of foreign countries. Further evidence is afforded by sculptures, which represent
various musical instruments and considerable bands of performers.
Whence the Babylonian music was originally derived is not known, though
probably we must look to Egypt as the source; but it may be asserted that whatever
was not indigenous to Babylonia itself must have come from the same sources
whence articles of commerce were acquired. At the time of Daniel, Babylon held
commerce in the west with Egypt and Tyre. By means of both these lines of
commerce Babylon was brought into contact with Greece, the great mistress of art
13

in the sixth century B.C. And as we find traces among the Greek instruments of the
Semitic Nabla and Kinura, it seems, à priori, highly probable that some of the Greek
instruments should have found their way to Tyre, and to Egypt, and then penetrated
to Babylon.
For many years previous to Nebuchadnezzar there had been considerable
communication between Greece and the East. We know that 300 years earlier
Sargon made Javan or Greece tributary. The statue of this king found at Idalium
proves that he conquered the Greek colony of Cyprus. His son Sennacherib, we
know, was engaged in war with Greeks in Cilicia. His grandson, Esarhaddon, had
Greeks fighting on his side during his Asian campaign. It would be very remarkable
if, during the many years throughout which Greece and Assyria were brought into
connection, the musical instruments of the one nation should not have become
known to the other. And if Assyria acquired Greek musical instruments, what is
more probable than that many years before Nebuchadnezzar’s time they were
known in Babylon?
The connection between Greece and the East did not cease with the fall of the
Assyrian empire. In the army of Nebuchadnezzar we find serving as soldier the
brother of the poet Alcæus, and a few lines are extant in which this great lyric
writer welcomes home his brother from the Babylonian campaign. The historical
notices of these times are very scanty, so that it is not easy to demonstrate the extent
of Greek commerce in the sixth century B.C., but the facts mentioned above give us
strong grounds for supposing that at an early period there was an interchange of
musical instruments between the East and the West, and with the instruments
would pass their names, which in the course of time would become more or less
corrupted as the people who adopted them found it hard or easy to pronounce and
transliterate the words.
We should expect therefore, à priori, in any list of Babylonian instruments, to find
some of the names of Semitic, some of Greek extraction, and some of very doubtful
etymology. This is precisely what we find in the book of Daniel. Of the names of the
six instruments mentioned, two are undoubtedly of Semitic origin, one if not two are
Greek, one is uncertain, while the sixth is perhaps not an instrument at all, though
the word is undoubtedly Greek.
The instruments that have Semitic names are the “cornet” and the “flute.” They are
both of great antiquity. The former is frequently found in the reliefs which
represent military scenes, and the mention of it in this chapter is probably to be
accounted for by the fact that the army was present.
The instruments which appear to have been derived from Greece are the “harp”
and the “psaltery.” The former is frequently represented in the reliefs, possessing
strings in number from three upwards. The psaltery is of uncertain etymology, but
looks like a Greek word. The context requires a word to denote “cymbals,” which
occur very frequently in the sculptures, and do not readily find an equivalent among
14

the instruments mentioned by David.
What the “sackbut” may have been must be left undecided. It is true that a word
sambuca occurs in Greek, but it is of foreign extraction.
The “dulcimer,” sûmphonia in the Chaldee, is probably not the name of a musical
instrument, but means a “concerted piece of music.” The passages upon which it has
been inferred that the sûmphonia was an instrument are Polyb. xxvi. 10, § 5, Athen.
x. 53 (near the end); neither passage, however, is conclusive.
Verse 1
(1) An image.—If this image was made after the manner described (Isaiah 44:9-20),
the body was formed of wood, and the whole, when properly shaped, was covered
with thin plates of gold. As the height of the whole is disproportionate to the width,
it is probable that the height of the pedestal on which the image stood is included
under the sixty cubits.
Plain of Dura.—The older commentators identified this place with various sites,
some north, some east of Babylon. Recent discoveries place it nearer to Babylon, in a
place still called by a similar name.
TRAPP, "Daniel 3:1 Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height
[was] threescore cubits, [and] the breadth thereof six cubits: he set it up in the plain
of Dura, in the province of Babylon.
Ver. 1. Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold.] Having taken Tyre, which
was that great service spoken of in Ezekiel 29:18, subdued Egypt, which was his pay
for his pains at Tyre, and overthrown Nineveh, as Nahum had foretold, he was so
puffed up with his great success that he set up this monstrous statue of himself, to be
adored by all on pain of death. That it was his own image which he here erected for
such a purpose, as did also afterwards Gaius Caligula, the Roman emperor, it is
gathered, (1.) Because he did not worship it himself; (2.) Because [Daniel 3:12] it is
distinguished from his gods; (3.) Because this was long since foretold of him, [Isaiah
14:14] that, Lucifer-like, he should take upon him as a god; which because he did,
he was worthily turned agrazing among beasts. [Daniel 4:33] Meanwhile, take notice
here of the inconstant and mutable disposition of this proud prince as to matter of
religion. Velox oblivio est veritatis, saith Jerome; The truth is soon forgotten.
Nebuchadnezzar, who so lately had worshipped a servant of God as a god, and not
being suffered to do so, declared for the one only true God, and advanced his
servants to places of greatest preferment, is now setting up idolatry in despite of
God, and cruelly casting into the fire those whom he had so exalted, because they
dissented. Daniel, it is likely, withstood this ungodly enterprise so far as be might,
and left the rest to God.
15

Whose height was threescore cubits.] The ordinary cubit is a foot and half; but the
Babylonian cubit, saith Herodotus, was three fingers greater than the common
cubit; so that this image might be sixty-seven ordinary cubits high. The Rhodian
Colosse was larger yet than this; for it was fourscore cubits high, made of brass in
the form of a man, standing with his two legs striding over a haven, under which
ships with their sails and masts might pass. (a) The little finger of it was as large as
an ordinary man, being the work of twelve years, made by Chares of Lindum, and
worthily reckoned for one of the world’s seven wonders. It was afterwards sold to a
Jew, who loaded nine hundred camels with the brass of it; for it had been thrown
down by an earthquake. (b) This image of Nebuchadnezzar was thus great, to affect
the people with wonderment - so they "wondered after the beast" [Revelation
13:3] - and thus glorious, gilded at least, if not of solid gold, to perstringe their
senses, and with exquisite music to draw their affections. The Papacy is in like sort
an alluring, tempting, bewitching religion. Jerome compareth heresy to this golden
image; Irenaeus worldly felicity, which the devil enticeth men to admire and adore.
He set it up in the plain of Dura.] In a pleasant plain, mentioned also by Ptolemy (c)
the geographer, quo statua commendatior habeatur, that it might be the more
regarded.
PETT, "Introduction
Chapter 3 The Great Image of Nebuchadnezzar And Salvation from the Fiery
Furnace.
This chapter following chapter 2 seems to confirm that Nebuchadnezzar had seen
the image that he had envisioned there as representing the gods. Probably what
Daniel had told him, with its suggestion of his empire finally being replaced, had
concerned him and had given him the idea of setting up such an image as
representing the god who was over the empire (possibly Marduk or Nebo, compare
Roma), and requiring a great demonstration of loyalty. Only his image would be
superior to the one that he had seen. It would be all of gold. There would be no
suggestion of some empire following his. There was certainly no doubt that he
wanted it to reflect well on himself. And it would confirm the loyalty of the people,
and fill them with awe at his magnificence. But the fact that there is no suggestion
made that it was an image of himself counts against it being so, otherwise it would
surely have been pointed out.
Verse 1
‘Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height was threescore
cubits, and its breadth six cubits. He set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of
Babylon.’
This image of gold which Nebuchadnezzar set up, if it was gold through and
16

through, would take up much of the temple treasury, for its cost would have been
enormous, for the image was huge (the Colossus of Rhodes was not quite as high).
But when a king like Nebuchadnezzar, with the treasures of the nations in his
treasury, decides to make an impression, we must expect some such display.
However, it is quite possible that it was in fact gold plated as was customary with
such statues (compare Isaiah 40:19; Jeremiah 10:4). The image is said to be over
twenty eight metres (ninety feet) high and nearly three metres (nine feet) across.
Grotesqueness was a feature of Babylonian sculpture. But the image itself may not
have been that height for the height probably included a large base or mound. Such
kings loved to boast and the measurements were probably official ones. The
sexagesimal measurement (based on sixties rather than tens) is an indication of
authenticity.
The statue would soon disappear once Babylon was captured. Herodotus mentions a
pure gold statue of a man twelve cubits high connected with a temple in the time of
Cyrus.
‘The plain of Dura.’ This was possibly Tell Dur, twenty seven kilometres south west
of Baghdad although there are several Babylonian places named Duru. The name is
thus in keeping with the Babylonian milieu and is a further sign of historicity.
WHEDON, " 1. Kuenen (Onderzoek, ii, N. 487), following Reuss (La Bible, 1879)
and others, emphasizes the disproportion between the height and the breadth of this
image, and also points out the “great improbability” that a “column of gold” of this
size should have been erected. But if the height of 60 cubits (about 100 feet) is
supposed to include a pedestal, the proper proportion for the figure is retained,
while there is no reason to suppose that the writer here was speaking of a statue of
solid gold of this size (which Meinhold has calculated would have contained gold
worth $2,000,000,000), but rather of a statue covered with gold, which was very
common at this time in Babylonia. The story of its immense size has recently been
rendered less incredible by the discovery at San (Zoan), in Egypt, of an erect
colossus of Ramses II sculptured out of hard red granite, standing 100 feet high
from head to foot, or 115 feet high including the pedestal, and weighing 1,200 tons.
Professor Fuller has even supposed that Nebuchadnezzar may have been led to erect
his statue because of his admiration for this great Ramses colossus, which he might
have seen during his invasion of Egypt. He thinks it may have been a statue of
himself to celebrate his successful campaign there (in his “eighteenth year,” LXX.).
The Pharaohs carved their effigies in stone, but he would cast his in gold. In favor of
this it is also urged that the Aramaic word for statue used here is “a likeness.”
Professor Jastrow, taking this to be a statue of Nebuchadnezzar, says that this “may
be regarded as an authentic picture of a custom that survived to the closing days of
the Babylonian monarchy, except that we have no proof that divine honors were
paid to these statues,” and gives a corresponding act on the part of one of the
earliest kings, Gudea (Religion of Babylonia, 1899, p. 669).
17

But rather than regard this story as a Maccabean invention, or the command to
worship his own image as the eccentric act of a king soon to become entirely insane,
it may with more probability be supposed that this was a statue of some great
Babylonian divinity rather than of the king. This very term “image” has been found
used in the Sendjirli inscriptions of a date shortly preceding that of Nebuchadnezzar
for the “statues” of the gods, as also in the Palmyrene inscriptions of the second
century B.C. Dr.
Budge is sure this statue was the image of the god Bel, whose chief shrine at Babylon
was called E-sagili, “lofty-headed.” The inscriptions speak of the setting up of such
statues of the gods, as, for example, by Asurnazirpal, who says, “I erected an image
of Ninib… of choice mountain stone and of pure gold.” While the gods were usually
represented seated rather than standing, some erect statues have been found, like
that of Ramses previously mentioned, and Pausanias states that Bathycles of
Magnesia was just at this era (550 B.C.) erecting near Sparta a throne for a bronze
standing statue of Apollo 30 cubits in height. If this were indeed an image of Bel-
Marduk, then those who refused to bow down before it defied the great god of
Babylon, to whom Nebuchadnezzar in his inscriptions is constantly ascribing
lordship over the four quarters of the world. Origen, Irenaeus, and other early
commentators often describe this as the figure of Antichrist, “the image of the
beast” (Revelation xiii; xiv), whose satanic number was 666, “the devil no doubt
inducing Nebuchadnezzar to erect it.”
It is worthy of notice that the dimensions given (60, 6) are distinctly Babylonian,
since they used not the decimal but the sexigesimal system of notation.
In the inscriptions there is often found mention of a duru (“wall,” “fortress,” or
“hill”). Lenormant and Oppert located a “plain of Duru” some dozen miles east of
the city of Babylon, where there is a mound even yet bearing this name.
POOLE, "Nebuchadnezzar setting up an image commandeth all persons to worship
it, Daniel 3:1-7. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are accused of disobeying the
command, Daniel 3:8-12. The king threateneth them; their resolute answer, Daniel
3:13-18. They are cast into the fiery furnace, Daniel 3:19-23. God delivereth them
unhurt out of it, which Nebuchadnezzar seeing blesseth God, and acknowledgeth his
power, Daniel 3:24-29. Their advancement, Daniel 3:30.
This daring sin of Nebuchadnezzar was aggravated many ways, by the greatness of
the kingdom and majesty God had given him, by the late discovery made to him
when Daniel interpreted his dream, by his conviction and confession upon it of that
great God and his sovereign power: this is the height of ingratitude, arguing his
carriage before to be only a fit of astonishment, without the least change upon his
heart.
The vast proportion of the statue, or idol, was to show his greatness by the height
18

and bulk of it, and his pride and magnificence in the richness of it, seeing it was of
gold, and to be a monument to posterity of his famous exploits. Some give this
reason, that he might seem hereby to avert the fate of his empire, foretold by Daniel,
and declare himself sole monarch of the world, or head of gold, because he made it
of gold, whether massy, or plated, or gilded, matters not. Likewise that he might
seem no ways to be inclined to the Jews, or their religion, whereof the Chaldeans
might be jealous, seeing he had owned their God to be greatest, and had preferred
Daniel and his friends to great honours. Nebuchadnezzar assured his wise men and
nobles that he would still maintain the old established religion, without innovation
or mixture: so Mald, Menochius, Geierus: that they had a spite against the Jews is
clear, Daniel 3:8,12.
BENSON, "Daniel 3:1. Nebuchadnezzar made an image of gold — How soon this
image was erected, after the dream in his second year, is uncertain. The Greek and
Arabic interpreters suppose it to have been in the eighteenth year of his reign, and
Dr. Prideaux agrees with them. But whether it was then, or, as some think, later, the
design of it probably was, to frustrate the exposition, and defeat the end of the
dream: on which account, perhaps, the image was made wholly of gold, and not of
different metals, to make an ostentatious display of the abundance of his wealth,
and to obviate the jealousies of his people, excited by his favours to Daniel and his
friends. Some or all of these motives might influence this haughty and inconstant
monarch to desert the true God, whom he had so lately acknowledged, and to yield
again to the force of those inveterate habits, from which he had been so
miraculously recovered: see Wintle. The height thereof was threescore cubits — The
proportion of the height of this image seems very unequal to the breadth, unless the
pedestal, on which it was placed, be included therein. Houbigant, and some others,
on account of this disparity, think it was rather a column or pyramid than an image
of the human form: but Diodorus, lib. 2. § 9, giving an account of the plunder
Xerxes had taken out of the temple of Belus, mentions an image of massy gold that
was forty feet high, which Prideaux conjectures to have been this statue made by
Nebuchadnezzar. The statue of Jupiter also, made by Lysippus, at Tarentum, is said
to have been forty cubits high. It is probable that the plain of Dura, here mentioned,
was some extensive plain near Babylon, and that the image set up in it was erected
in honour of Bel, the chief idol of the Babylonians.
COKE, "Introduction
CHAP. III.
Nebuchadnezzar dedicateth a golden image in Dura. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-
nego are accused for not worshipping the image. They, being threatened, make a
good confession. God delivereth them out of the furnace. Nebuchadnezzar, seeing
the miracle, blesseth God.
19

Before Christ 587.
THIS chapter contains a history of Nebuchadnezzar's erecting an image of gold of
an immense size, as an idol to which he expected all his empire to pay worship.
Daniel's three friends, refusing this worship, are cast into a furnace of fire, and by
their miraculous delivery thence the king is again brought to an acknowledgment of
the one true God.
How soon this image was erected after the dream in his second year is uncertain.
Some of the ancient versions begin this chapter with "In the eighteenth year," and
Dr. Prideaux agrees with them, though the words are not in the present text: but
whether it happened then, or as some think, later, the design of it probably was to
frustrate the exposition, and defeat the end of the dream; on which account perhaps
the image was made wholly of gold, and not of different metals; to make an
ostentatious display of the abundance of his wealth, and to obviate the jealousies of
his people on account of his favours to Daniel and his friends. Some or all of these
motives might probably influence this haughty and inconstant monarch to desert
the true God, whom he had so lately acknowledged, and to yield again to the force of
those inveterate habits, from which he had been so miraculously recovered.
This statue is thought to have been hollow within, like the Colossus at Rhodes,
whose height exceeded that of the statue by ten cubits: the proportion of the height
seems unequal to the breadth, unless the pedestal be included therein on which it
was placed. Houbigant, on account of this disparity, thinks it was rather a column
or pyramid than of the human form: but Diodorus, lib. 2: sect. 9 tells us, that Xerxes
took away an image of gold forty feet long when he demolished the temple of Belus
in Babylon, which Prideaux supposes may have been this of Nebuchadnezzar. The
statue of Jupiter also made by Lysippus at Tarentum is said to be forty cubits. The
plain of Dura where it was erected was probably near a town called by Symmachus
Dourau, and by Ptolemy Doraba; "Ammianus Marcellinus mentions Dura as not far
from the place where Julian died; and in D'Anville's map of the Tigris and
Euphrates it is on the Tigris, under 34½ lat. and in Niebuhr's map of his journey (45
of vol. 2:) is Dor." Michaelis. But Jerom considers it as an inclosed place in Babylon,
see chap. Daniel 1:2 and the LXX has περιβολον, considering it as an appellative for
a sort of circus.
Verse 1
Daniel 3:1. Nebuchadnezzar—made an image of gold— But what did this image or
statue represent? Grotius insists that it was the statue of Nabopalassar, the father of
Nebuchadnezzar, whom this prince chose to rank with the gods. Others think that
Nebuchadnezzar erected his own statue, and intended to be adored under this form.
But throughout the whole chapter, Nebuchadnezzar, in speaking to Shadrach,
Meshach, and Abed-nego, no where complains of injury done to his person, or
statue; but only that the companions of Daniel do not worship his gods, nor the
statue erected by his orders. And in chap. Daniel 4:8 he says, that the name of
Belteshazzar is composed of the name of his god, and Bel was certainly the most
20

celebrated deity of that country. It was to this god, therefore, that the statue in
question was certainly consecrated. It was toward the end of the reign of
Nebuchadnezzar that this event happened; for in the decree, the beginning of which
we read in the end of this chapter, and to which this miracle gave occasion, the
prince recounts the dreams which had been explained to him by Daniel. See chap.
Daniel 4:4, &c. He there describes in what manner he was reduced to the state of
beasts, driven from his palace, and afterwards re-established on his throne; all
which happened in the last years of his reign. See Calmet.
Verse 5
Daniel 3:5. Harp— The original word is ‫קיתרס‬ caithros, which seems to be
denominated from the citron-tree, the product of Armenia, Media, and Persia; the
tree itself might take its name from the ground in which it flourished, or from the
round figure of its fruit: for ‫קתר‬ ceter, signifies a rock in the Chaldee (Proverbs
30:26.), and mountainous or rocky places are called cythera, and citharon. Citra is
likewise Chaldee for a crown, turban, or diadem of the head, and is the proper
name for the Persian diadem, which the Greeks write Κιτταρος [cittaros], Κιδαρις
[cidaris], and Κιτταρις [cittaris.] An instrument shaped in the like orbicular form,
might for the same reason be called citerus; and this we are told was the original
form of the harp; or else, the matter of which it was made gave its name, as it did to
many other instruments in all nations. The modern Persian affords us another
derivation: Ciar-tar is their name for a lyre; ciar signifying four, and tar a string,
from the four chords with which it is strung; and as the ancients made use of such a
lyre, so by giving little or no sound to the R it might of old be pronounced like
cithara. See Bishop Chandler, Vind. of Def. Colossians 1 p. 50.
Sackbut— The Hebrew word is ‫סבכא‬ sabca, whence the Greek word σαμβυκη .
Euphorion mentions this instrument as very ancient. The statue of one of the muses,
erected at Mitylene in Lesbos, has a sambuca in her hand. It is mentioned as a
foreign invention in Aristoxenus and Strabo; is expressly said to be the discovery of
the Syrians, and was in use among the Parthians and Troglodytes. The name is
Syriac or Chaldee, and comes from ֵ‫ך‬‫סב‬ sabbach, which signifies to twist or plait:
and it is applied to trees which bear thick branches, and to a military battering
engine, worked by a variety of ropes; and for the same reason, to a musical
instrument made of the wood of such trees, or thickly strung with chords. The
sabek-tree is mentioned in the Septuagint version of Genesis 22:13 which Vossius
takes to be the Syrian or Egyptian jessamin, called zabach and sambach by the
Syrians and Arabs to this day. In other parts sambucus is the name of the alder. Of
such light and brittle wood musical instruments were composed, and therefore we
need search no farther for the original of this name. However, it may be noted, that
samma and buc are Indian or Persian words for certain instruments of music; and
anciently those tongues were the same with those which were spoken by the Medes
and Armenians. See Bishop Chandler, as above, p. 51.
Psaltery— The Hebrew word ‫פסנתרין‬ is psanterin, and the Greek psalterion. They
who invented the instrument undoubtedly imposed the name which it bears; for
21

wherever we can trace the one, we may ascribe the other. Now it is acknowledged by
the Greeks, that it was more ancient than Terpander; that it was barbarous or
foreign; that it abounded with many strings, and was the same with the old magadis,
pectys, and trigonum, which were many-stringed, and of a triangular form, of which
the Greeks did not assume the invention; and that there was in Persia (in which
Media and Armenia are generally included) a pectys and magadis, whose strings
hung on both sides of the wood, and which was touched with both hands, as our
harps are. Hence we may safely infer, that the invention and name are to be derived
from the East. We have such accounts of the splendour and politeness of the Median
court, that we may reasonably suppose that both the instrument and its name had
their original in that country, and were borrowed of them by the Babylonians and
Greeks. This will appear more evident from the termination of the original, psanter,
for old Persic substantives commonly end in ter. And as in is added in the modern
Persian to heighten the sense of adjectives in the superlative degree; so in is a Syriac
or Babylonian plural, which the Chaldees might subjoin to the foreign name of this
instrument, the better to express the sounding of the strings of both sides of this
instrument at once, with both the hands of the performer. Psanter may be derived
from the Chaldee or Syriac ‫פשׁ‬ pesh, or ‫פשׁשׁ‬ peshesh, which signifies beating,
impelling, pushing, or touching with the fingers. In the Chaldee, a word which
primarily signifies pulsations or beating, is applied to musical instruments in
general; and the Jews called neginoth, in the plural, one kind of stringed
instruments which was more than ordinarily struck and moved in various parts;
and which is therefore rendered by the LXX a psaltery. Psanterin then, if it be not a
neutral superlative used substantively in the Persian or Median tongue, to signify an
instrument of all others the most touched, may be a Median word, to which in
Babylon they added a Syriac plural, to express, as in the form of neginoth, the
frequent and double pulsations thereof. Such a root is to be found at present among
the Persians. Bishana, or, as it maybe spoken, psana, is the percussion of a harp in
Persic, and the verb has the sense of making an impression on the nerves. Bishop
Chandler, p. 53, &c.
Dulcimer— The original word is ‫סומפניה‬ sumponiah, and the Greek συμφωνια
symphonia; but the signification in the Chaldee and in the Greek is different. The
Greek is a compound word, which signifies a concert, or harmony of many
instruments; whereas the word here, is a simple name of one single instrument,
upon which different parts of music were played: and as the stringed instruments
came originally from the East, probably some Grecian might add a greater number
of strings or chords, to give a greater compass or variety of music, which being
called symphonia in Greek, and introduced into the Chaldean and Persian courts,
might possibly have retained its Grecian name; though this is by no means certain.
As to the particular instrument intended by the name, we cannot be positive. A pipe
perforated with many holes was called a symphony in the Jerusalem tongue; and a
bladder with pipes in it (now called a bag-pipe) had the like name in the language of
the Moors, which they left behind them in Spain. The Moors in Africa called a little
drum, hollow in the middle, and covered on one side with a skin, a symphony; which
name might as justly be given to one kind of harp or fiddle, which was made,
22

according to St. Augustin, of a concave piece of wood, like a drum. For all agree that
the reason of calling so many things by the same name, seems to be their cavity. The
learned Henry Michaelis derives the word from the Hebrew ‫ספן‬ saphan, which
signifies to conceal, or to cover in a hollow form. Hence ‫ספינה‬ sephina is put for a
ship, Jonah 1:5 or the hold, or capacious part of it, agreeable to the translation of
the LXX. Symphony might possibly come from ‫ספפ‬ sipap, which carries the idea of
cavity to all its derivatives. Thus ‫ףּ‬‫ס‬ saph or suph, (the original of the Greek word
scyphus,) signifies a cup or bowl, in the Hebrew or Chaldee. ‫ףּ‬‫סו‬ Suph is the name of
a reed or cane, from the tube in the middle of it; (see Exodus 2:3.) and saph is used
for the shank of a candlestick, and for the middle part of pillars, placed before the
portal or threshold of great houses, as well as for the entrance or gate itself; for
these ornamental pillars were probably hollow, like the two great ones in the porch
of Solomon's temple. Now, as simpulum, a cup used in sacrifices, is confessedly
derived from the Hebrew suph or saph; so, by the like analogy, symphony, or
symphonia, may, when applied to any hollow instrument composed of boards, or of
wood otherwise excavated. It is the genius of the eastern tongues to increase
syllables at the end of words, as new ideas are added to their primitive
significations; and as syllables are increased in words which have two radicals
following each other of the same letter, the first letter is commonly dropped, and the
last is supplied by a certain mark on the next, which the Chaldees almost constantly
change into the letter N, and almost as often liquidate into M, when the
compensative N goes before the letters BMP. Thus, instead of siphonia, as the word
is written in some copies, Daniel 3:10 the Chaldees would sound it sinphonia; but
for facility and gracefulness of speaking, they soften it into simphonia; because of
the P which immediately follows. See Bishop Chandler, Vind. p. 45 and Dr.
Chandler's Defence, p. 15.
EBC, "THE IDOL OF GOLD, AND THE FAITHFUL THREE
REGARDED as an instance of the use of historic fiction to inculcate the noblest
truths, the third chapter of Daniel is not only superb in its imaginative grandeur,
but still more in the manner in which it sets forth the piety of ultimate faithfulness,
and of that
"Death-defying utterance of truth"
which is the essence of the most heroic and inspiring forms of martyrdom. So far
from slighting it, because it does not come before us with adequate evidence to prove
that it was even intended to be taken as literal history, I have always regarded it as
one of the most precious among the narrative chapters of Scripture. It is of priceless
value as illustrating the deliverance of undaunted faithfulness-as setting forth the
truth that they who love God and trust in Him must love Him and trust in Him even
till the end, in spite not only of the most overwhelming peril, but even when they are
brought face to face with apparently hopeless defeat. Death itself, by torture or
sword or flame, threatened by the priests and tyrants and multitudes of the earth set
23

in open array against them, is impotent to shake the purpose of God’s saints. When
the servant of God can do nothing else against the banded forces of sin, the world,
and the devil, he at least can die, and can say like the Maccabees, "Let us die in our
simplicity!". He may be saved from death; but even if not, he must prefer death to
apostasy, and will save his own soul. That the Jews were ever reduced to such a
choice during the Babylonian exile there is no evidence; indeed, all evidence points
the other way, and seems to show that they were allowed with perfect tolerance to
hold and practise their own religion. But in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes the
question which to choose-martyrdom or apostasy-became a very burning one.
Antiochus set up at Jerusalem "the abomination of desolation," and it is easy to
understand what courage and conviction a tempted Jew might derive from the study
of this splendid defiance. That the story is of a kind well fitted to haunt the
imagination is shown by the fact that Firdausi tells a similar story from Persian
tradition of "a martyr hero who came unhurt out of a fiery furnace."
This immortal chapter breathes exactly the same spirit as the forty-fourth Psalm.
"Our heart is not turned back, Neither our steps gone out of Thy way: No, not when
Thou hast smitten us into the place of dragons, And covered us with the shadow of
death. If we have forgotten the Name of our God, And holden up our hands to any
strange god, Shall not God search it out? For He knoweth the very secrets of the
heart."
"Nebuchadnezzar the king," we are told in one of the stately overtures in which this
writer rejoices, "made an image of gold, whose height was threescore cubits, and the
breadth thereof six cubits, and he set it up in the plains of Dura, in the province of
Babylon."
No date is given, but the writer may well have supposed or have traditionally heard
that some such event took place about the eighteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar’s
reign, when he had brought to conclusion a series of great victories and conquests.
Nor are we told whom the image represented. We may imagine that it was an idol of
Bel-merodach, the patron deity of Babylon, to whom we know that he did erect an
image; or of Nebo, from whom the king derived his name. When it is said to be "of
gold," the writer, in the grandiose character of his imaginative faculty, may have
meant his words to be taken literally, or he may merely have meant that it was
gilded, or overlaid with gold. There were colossal images in Egypt and in Nineveh,
but we never read in history of any other gilded image ninety feet high and nine feet
broad. The name of the plain or valley in which it was erected-Dura-has been found
in several Babylonian localities.
Then the king proclaimed a solemn dedicatory festival, to which he invited every
sort of functionary, of which the writer, with his usual and rotundity of expression,
accumulates the eight names. They were:-
1. The Princes, "satraps," or wardens of the realm.
24

2. The Governors. [Daniel 2:48]
3. The Captains.
4. The Judges.
5. The Treasurers or Controllers.
6. The Counsellors.
7. The Sheriffs.
8. All the Rulers of the Provinces.
Any attempts to attach specific values to these titles are failures. They seem to be a
catalogue of Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian titles, and may perhaps (as Ewald
conjectured) be meant to represent the various grades of three classes of
functionaries-civil, military, and legal.
Then all these officials, who with leisurely stateliness are named again, came to the
festival, and stood before the image. It is not improbable that the writer may have
been a witness of some such splendid ceremony to which the Jewish magnates were
invited in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes.
Then a herald (kerooza) cried aloud a proclamation "to all peoples, nations, and
languages." Such a throng might easily have contained Greeks, Phoenicians, Jews,
Arabs, and Assyrians, as well as Babylonians. At the outburst of a blast of
"boisterous janizary-music" they are all to fall down and worship the golden image.
Of the six different kinds of musical instruments, which, in his usual style, the
writer names and reiterates, and which it is neither possible nor very important to
distinguish, three-the harp, psaltery, and bagpipe-are Greek; two, the horn and
sackbut, have names derived from roots found in both Aryan and Semitic
languages; and one, "the pipe," is Semitic. As to the list of officials, the writer had
added "and all the rulers of the provinces"; so here he adds "and all kinds of
music."
Any one who refused to obey the order was to be flung, the same hour, into the
burning furnace of fire. Professor Sayce, in his "Hibbert Lectures," connects the
whole scene with an attempt, first by Nebuchadrezzar, then by Nabunaid, to make
Merodach-who, to conciliate the prejudices of the worshippers of the older deity Bel,
was called Bel-merodach-the chief deity of Babylon. He sees in the king’s
proclamation an underlying suspicion that some would be found to oppose his
attempted centralisation of worship.
25

The music burst forth, and the vast throng all prostrated themselves, except
Daniel’s three companions, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.
We naturally pause to ask where then was Daniel? If the narrative be taken for
literal history, it is easy to answer with the apologist that he was ill; or was absent;
or was a person of too much importance to be required to prostrate himself; or that
"the Chaldeans" were afraid to accuse him. "Certainly," says Professor Fuller,
"had this chapter been the composition of a pseudo-Daniel, or the record of a
fictitious event, Daniel would have been introduced and his immunity explained."
Apologetic literature abounds in such fanciful and valueless arguments. It would be
just as true, and just as false, to say that "certainly," if the narrative were historic,
his absence would have been explained; and all the more because he was expressly
elected to be "in the gate of the king." But if we regard the chapter as a noble
Haggada, there is not the least difficulty in accounting for Daniel’s absence. The
separate stories were meant to cohere to a certain extent; and though the writers of
this kind of ancient imaginative literature, even in Greece, rarely trouble themselves
with any questions which lie outside the immediate purpose, yet the introduction of
Daniel into the story would have been to violate every vestige of verisimilitude. To
represent Nebuchadrezzar worshipping Daniel as a god, and offering oblations to
him on one page, and on the next to represent the king as throwing him into a
furnace for refusing to worship an idol, would have involved an obvious
incongruity. Daniel is represented in the other chapters as playing his part and
bearing his testimony to the God of Israel; this chapter is separately devoted to the
heroism and the testimony of his three friends. Observing the defiance of the king’s
edict, certain Chaldeans, actuated by jealousy, came near to the king and "accused"
the Jews. [Daniel 6:13-14] The word for "accused" is curious and interesting. It is
literally "ate the pieces of the Jews ," evidently involving a metaphor of fierce
devouring malice. Reminding the king of his decree, they inform him that three of
the Jews to whom he has given such high promotion "thought well not to regard
thee; thy god will they not serve, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set
up." Nebuchadrezzar, like other despots who suffer from the vertigo of autocracy,
was liable to sudden outbursts of almost spasmodic fury. We read of such storms of
rage in the case of Antiochus Epiphanes, of Nero, of Valentinian I, and even of
Theodosius. The double insult to himself and to his god on the part of men to whom
he had shown such conspicuous favour transported him out of himself. For Bel-
merodach, whom he had made the patron god of Babylon, was, as he says in one of
his own inscriptions, "the lord, the joy of my heart in Babylon, which is the seat of
my sovereignty and empire." It seemed to him too intolerable that this god, who had
crowned him with glory and victory, and that he himself, arrayed in the plenitude of
his imperial power, should be defied and set at naught by three miserable and
ungrateful captives.
He puts it to them whether it was their set purpose that they would not serve his
gods or worship his image. Then he offers them a locus poenitentiae. The music
should sound forth again. If they would then worship-but if not, they should be
flung into the furnace, -"and who is that God that shall deliver you out of my
26

hands?"
The question is a direct challenge and defiance of the God of Israel, like Pharaoh’s
"And who is Jehovah, that I shall obey His voice?" or like Sennacherib’s "Who are
they among all the gods that have delivered their land out of my hand?" [Exodus
5:2, Isaiah 36:20, 2 Chronicles 32:13-17] It is answered in each instance by a decisive
interposition. The answer of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego is truly magnificent
in its unflinching courage. It is: "O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer
thee a word concerning this. If our God whom we serve be able to deliver us, He will
deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and out of thy hand, O king. But if not, be
it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden
image which thou hast set up." By the phrase "if our God be able" no doubt as to
God’s power is expressed. The word "able" merely means "able in accordance with
His own plans." The three children knew well that God can deliver, and that He has
repeatedly delivered His saints. Such deliverances abound on the sacred page, and
are mentioned in the "Dream of Gerontius":-
"Rescue him, O Lord, in this his evil hour, As of old so many by Thy mighty Power:
Enoch and Elias from the common doom; Noe from the waters in a saving home;
Abraham from the abounding guilt of Heathenesse, Job from all his multiform and
fell distress; Isaac, when his father’s knife was raised to slay; Lot from burning
Sodom on its judgment-day; Moses from the land of bondage and despair; Daniel
from the hungry lions in their lair; David from Golia, and the wrath of Saul; And
the two Apostles from their prison-thrall."
But the willing martyrs were also well aware that in many cases it has not been
God’s purpose to deliver His saints out of the peril of death; and that it has been far
better for them that they should be carried heavenwards on the fiery chariot of
martyrdom. They were therefore perfectly prepared to find that it was the will of
God that they too should perish, as thousands of God’s faithful ones had perished
before them, from the tyrannous and cruel hands of man; and they were cheerfully
willing to confront that awful extremity. Thus regarded, the three words "And if
not" are among the sublimest words uttered in all Scripture. They represent the
truth that the man who trusts in God will continue to say even to the end, "Though
He slay me, yet will I trust in Him." They are the triumph of faith over all adverse
circumstances. It has been the glorious achievement of man to have attained, by the
inspiration of the breath of the Almighty, so clear an insight into the truth that the
voice of duty must be obeyed to the very end, as to lead him to defy every
combination of opposing forces. The gay lyrist of heathendom expressed it in his
famous ode, -
"Justum et tenacem propositi virum Non civium ardor prays jubentium, Non vultus
instantis tyranni, Mente quatit solida."
It is man’s testimony to his indomitable belief that the things of sense are not to be
valued in comparison to that high happiness which arises from obedience to the law
27

of conscience, and that no extremities of agony are commensurate with apostasy.
This it is which, more than anything else, has, in spite of appearances, shown that
the spirit of man is of heavenly birth, and has enabled him to unfold
"The wings within him wrapped, and proudly rise
Redeemed from earth, a creature of the skies."
For wherever there is left in man any true manhood, he has never shrunk from
accepting death rather than the disgrace of compliance with what he despises and
abhors. This it is which sends our soldiers on the forlorn hope, and makes them
march with a smile upon the batteries which vomit their cross-fires upon them;
"and so die by thousands the unnamed demigods." By virtue of this it has been that
all the martyrs have, "with the irresistible might of their weakness," shaken the
solid world.
On hearing the defiance of the faithful Jews-absolutely firm in its decisiveness, yet
perfectly respectful in its tone-the tyrant was so much beside himself, that, as he
glared on Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, his very countenance was disfigured.
The furnace was probably one used for the ordinary cremation of the dead. He
ordered that it should be heated seven times hotter than it was wont to be heated,
and certain men of mighty strength who were in his army were bidden to bind the
three youths and fling them into the raging flames. So, bound in their hosen, their
tunics, their long mantles, and their other garments, they were cast into the seven-
times-heated furnace. The king’s commandment was so urgent, and the "tongue of
flame" was darting so fiercely from the horrible kiln, that the executioners perished
in planting the ladders to throw them in, but they themselves fell into the midst of
the furnace.
The death of the executioners seems to have attracted no special notice, but
immediately afterwards Nebuchadrezzar started in amazement and terror from his
throne, and asked his chamberlains, "Did we not cast three men bound into the
midst of the fire?"
"True, O king," they answered.
"Behold," he said, "I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they
have no hurt, and the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the gods!"
Then the king approached the door of the furnace of fire, and called, "Ye servants
of the Most High God, come forth." Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego came
out of the midst of the fire; and all the satraps, prefects, presidents, and court
chamberlains gathered round to stare on men who were so completely untouched by
the fierceness of the flames that not a hair of their heads had been singed, nor their
hosen shrivelled, nor was there even the smell of burning upon them. According to
the version of Theodotion, the king worshipped the Lord before them, and he then
28

published a decree in which, after blessing God for sending His angel to deliver His
servants who trusted in Him, he somewhat incoherently ordained that "every
people, nation, or language which spoke any blasphemy against the God of
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, should be cut in pieces, and his house made a
dunghill : since there is no other god that can deliver after this sort."
Then the king-as he had done before-promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego
in the province of Babylon.
Henceforth they disappear alike from history, tradition, and legend; but the whole
magnificent Haggada is the most powerful possible commentary on the words of
Isaiah 43:2 : "When thou walkest through the fire thou shalt not be burned, neither
shall the flame kindle upon thee."
How powerfully the story struck the imagination of the Jews is shown by the not
very apposite Song of the Three Children, with the other apocryphal additions.
Here we are told that the furnace was heated
"with rosin, pitch, tow, and small wood; so that the flame streamed forth above the
furnace forty and nine cubits. And it passed through and burned those Chaldeans it
found about the furnace. But the angel of the Lord came down into the furnace
together with Azarias and his fellows, and smote the flame of the fire out of the
oven; and made the midst of the furnace as it had been a moist whistling wind, so
that the fire touched them not at all, neither hurt nor troubled them."
In the Talmud the majestic limitations of the Biblical story are sometimes enriched
with touches of imagination, but more often coarsened by tasteless exhibitions of
triviality and rancour. Thus in the "Vayyikra Rabba" Nebuchadrezzar tries to
persuade the youths by fantastic misquotations of Isaiah 10:10,, Ezekiel 23:14.
Deuteronomy 4:28, Jeremiah 27:8; "and they refute him and end with clumsy plays
on his name," telling him that he should bark (nabach) like a dog, swell like a water-
jar (cod), and chirp like a cricket (tsirtsir), which he immediately did- i.e. , he was
smitten with lycanthropy.
In "Sanhedrin" f. 93, 1, the story is told of the adulterous false prophets Ahab and
Zedekiah, and it is added that Nebuchadrezzar offered them the ordeal of fire from
which the Three Children had escaped. They asked that Joshua the high priest
might be with them, thinking that his sanctity would be their protection. When the
king asked why Abraham, though alone, had been saved from the fire of Nimrod,
and the Three Children from the burning furnace, and yet the high priest should
have been singed, [Zechariah 3:2] Joshua answered that the presence of two wicked
men gave the fire power over him, and quoted the proverb, "Two dry Sticks kindle
one green one."
In "Pesachin," f. 118, 1, there is a fine imaginative passage on the subject, attributed
to Rabbi Samuel of Shiloh:-
29

"In the hour when Nebuchadrezzar the wicked threw Hananiah, Mishrael, and
Azariah into the midst of the furnace of fire, Gorgemi, the prince of the hail, stood
before the Holy One (blessed be He!) and said, ‘Lord of the world, let me go down
and cool the furnace.’ ‘No,’ answered Gabriel; ‘all men know that hail quenches
fire; but I, the prince of fire, will go down and make the furnace cool within and hot
without, and thus work a miracle within a miracle.’ The Holy One (blessed be He!)
said unto him, ‘Go down. In the self-same hour Gabriel opened his mouth and said,
‘And the truth of the Lord endureth for ever.’"
Mr. Ball, who quotes these passages from Wunsche’s "Bibliotheca Rabbinica" in his
Introduction to the Song of the Three Children, very truly adds that many
Scriptural commentators wholly lack the orientation derived from the study of
Talmudic and Midrashic literature which is an indispensable preliminary to a right
understanding of the treasures of Eastern thought. They do not grasp the inveterate
tendency of Jewish teachers to convey doctrine by concrete stories and illustrations,
and not in the form of abstract thought. "The doctrine is everything; the mode of
presentation has no independent value." To make the story the first consideration,
and the doctrine it was intended to convey an after-thought, as we, with our dry
Western literalness, are predisposed to do, is to reverse the Jewish order of thinking,
and to inflict unconscious injustice on the authors of many edifying narratives of
antiquity.
The part played by Daniel in the apocryphal Story of Susanna is probably suggested
by the meaning of his name: "Judgment of God." Both that story and Bel and the
Dragon are in their way effective fictions, though incomparably inferior to the
canonical part of the Book of Daniel.
And the startling decree of Nebuchadrezzar finds its analogy in the decree
published by Antiochus the Great to all his subjects in honour of the Temple at
Jerusalem, in which he threatened the infliction of heavy fines on any foreigner who
trespassed within the limits of the Holy Court.
PARKER, " Why the Image?
Daniel 3:1-5
Why did Nebuchadnezzar make this image of gold, whose height, including the
pedestal on which it stood, was threescore cubits? Was he trying to realise the
dream which Daniel related to him and interpreted? Was the image a picture of
himself, an expression of self-consciousness and self-glory? Was it in memory of
some all but forgotten victory? These questions have been considered, and left, as
they well may be, undecided. The king"s "image of gold" was a wooden effigy
inside. That effigy was only plated with gold,—"All that glitters is not gold." It
reads well in history that a man who was a king had so much gold at command that
30

he could make a lofty image of it. Many persons would be content to tell lies in a
similar way. There are not wanting persons who would be quite willing that
observers should count as solid gold the little thin plates that cover a wooden idol.
There is a want of reality; there is much reading of the surface, and very little
penetration into the inner quality and value of things—"The fire shall try every
man"s work of what sort it is." There was no harm in making the statue; men must
have some kind of recreation; our pride must have some way of embodying and
revealing itself to observers whose days are weary because of idleness. We may,
however, put harm into very innocent recreations. Things are what we make them:
"unto the pure all things are pure." The bad man never sees any good; the jealous
man is never at rest; the selfish man has no outlook upon fruitfields and odorous
gardens and orchards large as forests. It is so with our recreations, our amusements:
a sour-natured man looking upon any recreation sees in it all possible depravity;
recreation is to such a nature a species of profanity. It may well be so; the mischief
arises at the point at which the sour-natured man wishes to measure other people by
his standard. If he could say to himself, "I am poverty-stricken in my soul, I am a
born bigot, I am a Pharisee that never can get into heaven, and therefore I must not
judge other people," he would speak a plain and wise language; but when he sets
himself up as king and Judges , and says, "This is right, and that is unlawful," then
he becomes a trespasser, a speaker of mischievous things, a marplot in houses that
but for his presence would be quiet and cheerful and gladsome as homes. Beware of
appearances. We may appear to be good when in reality we are but covered with
thin and almost worthless tinsel; we may be studying vanity when we are only
professing to be adjusting appearances. There is a study of appearances that is
decent and proper, wise, economical, and instructive; but how easy it is to go out of
the appearance into the vanity, the conceit, the ostentation, and the display. The
harm is not in the things themselves, but some of us have learned of the very devil
himself, Beelzebub, prince of devils, to spoil everything, and to turn God"s sweet,
restful, sunny Sabbath into the cloudy week.
Nebuchadnezzar set his image up, and then he sent to "the princes, the governors
and the captains, the Judges , the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the
rulers of the provinces," to come to his dedication. When Nebuchadnezzar sent for
them, they came. "The princes, the governors and captains, the Judges , the
treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, were
gathered together unto the dedication of the image that Nebuchadnezzar the king
had set up; and they stood before the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up." How
then could it be wrong or unwise? It is impossible that so many great men could all
be mistaken. If the princes went wrong the governors would make it right; and if
the counsellors got bewildered the judges would explain the law with sepulchral and
ponderous wisdom; and if the sheriffs were mistaken the captains would bring them
into order again. So we should say. Here we have royalty, rulership, military pomp
and splendour, all gathered about this wooden-gold image. They are still there. That
assembly never dissolved. These people were born to accost one another, and were
never happy in each other"s absence. Yet the assembly provokes some sharp
questioning. Did they want to be there? We visit many places we do not want to.
31

Daniel 3 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Daniel 3 commentary

Similar to Daniel 3 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Daniel 3 commentary