Albert Barnes Commentary Daniel 3:25

"He answered and said, Lo, 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." — Daniel 3:25 (ASV)

He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose - From the fact that he saw these men now loose, and that this filled him with so much surprise, it can be presumed that they had been bound with something that was not combustible—with some sort of fetters or chains. In that case, it would be a matter of surprise that they should be “loose,” even though they could survive the action of the fire. The “fourth” figure now so mysteriously added to their number, it is clear, assumed the appearance of a “man,” and not the appearance of a celestial being, though it was the aspect of a man so noble and majestic that he deserved to be called a son of God.

Walking in the midst of the fire - The furnace, therefore, was large, so that those who were in it could walk about. The vision must have been sublime, and it is a beautiful image of the children of God often walking unhurt amidst dangers, safe beneath Divine protection.

And they have no hurt - Margin, “There is no hurt in them.” They walk unharmed amidst the flames. Of course, the king judged in this only from appearances, but the result (Daniel 3:27) showed that it was really so.

And the form of the fourth - Chaldee, (רוה rēvēh) - “his appearance” (from ראה râ'âh - “to see”); that is, he “seemed” to be a son of God; he “looked” like a son of God. The word does not refer to anything special or peculiar in his “form” or “figure,” but it may be supposed to denote something that was noble or majestic in his mien; something in his countenance and demeanor that declared him to be of heavenly origin.

Like the son of God - Two inquiries arise regarding this expression: first, what idea did the phrase convey as used by the king, or who did he take this figure to be? Second, who was he actually? Regarding the first inquiry, it may be observed that there is no evidence that the king referred to Him to whom this title is so frequently applied in the New Testament, the Lord Jesus Christ. This is clear for the following reasons:

1. There is no reason to believe that the king had any knowledge whatever that there would be one on earth to whom this title might be appropriately given.

2. There is no evidence that the title was then commonly given to the Messiah by the Jews, or, if it was, that the king of Babylon was so knowledgeable in Jewish theology as to be acquainted with it.

3. The language he uses does not necessarily imply that, even if he were acquainted with the fact that there was a prevailing expectation that such a being would appear on the earth, he intended to use it in that way.

The insertion of the article “the,” which is not in the Chaldee, gives a different impression from what the original would if literally interpreted. There is nothing in the Chaldee to limit it to any particular “son of God,” or to designate anyone to whom that term could be applied as peculiarly intended. It would seem probable that our translators meant to convey the idea that “the Son of God” specifically was intended, and undoubtedly they regarded this as one of His appearances to men before His incarnation; but it is clear that no such conception entered into the mind of the king of Babylon.

The Chaldee is simply, לבר־אלחין דמה dāmēh l'bar 'ĕlâhı̂yn - “like to A son of God,” or “to a son of the gods” - since the word אלחין ('ĕlâhı̂yn) (Chaldee), or אלהים ('ĕlohı̂ym) (Hebrew), though often, and indeed usually applied to the true God, is in the plural number, and from the mouth of a pagan would properly be used to denote the gods that he worshipped.

The article is not prefixed to the word “son,” and the language would apply to anyone who might properly be called a son of God.

The Vulgate has literally rendered it, “like to A son of God” — similis filio Dei; the Greek in the same way — ὁμοία ὑιῷ θεοῦ homoia huiō theou; the Syriac is like the Chaldee. Castellio renders it, quartus formam habet Deo nati similem — “the fourth has a form resembling one born of God.” Coverdale translates it: “the fourth is like an angel to look upon.” Luther, more definitely, states: “und der vierte ist gleich, als ware er ein Sohn der Gotter” — “and the fourth as if he might be ‘a’ son of the gods.”

It is clear that the authors of none of the other versions had the idea that our translators believed the text conveyed—an idea implying that the Babylonian monarch supposed the person he saw was the One who later became incarnate for our redemption.

In accordance with the common, well-known usage of the word “son” in the Hebrew and Chaldee languages, it would denote anyone who had a “resemblance” to another and would be applied to any being who was of a majestic or dignified appearance and who seemed worthy to be ranked among the gods. It was usual among pagans to suppose that the gods often appeared in human form, and Nebuchadnezzar probably regarded this as some such celestial appearance.

If it is supposed that he regarded it as some manifestation connected with the “Hebrew” form of religion, the most that would probably occur to him would be that it was some “angelic” being appearing now for the protection of these worshippers of Jehovah. But a second inquiry arises regarding this mysterious figure, one that is not so easily answered.

Who, in fact, “was” this being that appeared in the furnace for the protection of these three persecuted men?

Was it an angel, or was it the second person of the Trinity, “the” Son of God? That this was the Son of God—the second person of the Trinity, who later became incarnate—has been quite a common opinion of commentators. So it was held by Tertullian, Augustine, and Hilary, among the fathers; and so it has been held by Gill, Clarius, and others, among the moderns. Of those who have maintained that it was Christ, some have supposed that Nebuchadnezzar had been made acquainted with the belief of the Hebrews regarding the Messiah; others, that he spoke under the influence of the Holy Spirit, without being fully aware of what his words imported, as Caiaphas, Saul, Pilate, and others have done (Poole’s “Synopsis”).

The Jewish writers Jarchi, Saadias, and Jacchiades suppose that it was an angel, called a son of God, in accordance with the usual custom in the Scriptures. That this latter is the correct opinion will appear evident, though there cannot be exact certainty, from the following considerations:

1. The language used necessarily implies nothing more. Though it “might” indeed be applicable to the Messiah—the second person of the Trinity—if it could be determined from other sources that it was He, yet there is nothing in the language that necessarily suggests this.

2. In the explanation of the matter by Nebuchadnezzar himself (Daniel 3:28), he understood it to be an angel: “Blessed be the God of Shadrach, etc., who hath sent his angel,” etc. This shows that he had no other view of the subject, and that he had no higher knowledge in the case than to suppose that he was an angel of God. The knowledge of the existence of angels was so common among the ancients that there is no improbability in supposing that Nebuchadnezzar was sufficiently instructed on this point to know that they were sent for the protection of the good.

3. The belief that it was an angel accords with what we find elsewhere in this book (Daniel 7:10; Daniel 9:21), and in other places in the sacred Scriptures, respecting their being employed to protect and defend the children of God. Compare Psalm 34:7; Psalms 91:11–12; Matthew 18:10; Luke 16:22; Hebrews 1:14.

4. It may be added that it should not be supposed that it was the Son of God in the peculiar sense of that term without positive evidence, and such evidence does not exist. Indeed, there is hardly a probability that it was so.

If the Redeemer appeared on this occasion, it cannot be explained why, in a case equally important and perilous, He did not appear to Daniel when thrown into the lions’ den (Daniel 6:22). Since Daniel then attributed his deliverance to the intervention of an angel, there is every reason why the same explanation should be given for this passage.

As for the probability that an angel would be employed on an occasion like this, it may be observed that it is in accordance with the uniform representation of the Scriptures and with what we know to be a great law of the universe.

The weak, the feeble, and those who are in danger are protected by those who are strong; and there is, in itself, no more improbability in the supposition that an “angel” would be employed to work a miracle than that a “man” would be.

We are not to suppose that the angel was able to prevent the usual effect of fire by any natural strength of his own. The miracle in this case, like all other miracles, was wrought by the power of God. At the same time, the presence of the angel would be a pledge of Divine protection; would be an assurance that the effect produced was not from any natural cause; would furnish an easy explanation of so remarkable an occurrence; and, perhaps more than all, would impress the Babylonian monarch and his court with some just views of the Divine nature and with the truth of the religion professed by those whom he had thrown into the flames.

As for the probability that a miracle would be wrought on an occasion like this, it may be remarked that a more appropriate occasion for working a miracle could hardly be conceived.

At a time when the true religion was persecuted, at the court of the most powerful pagan monarch in the world, when the temple at Jerusalem was destroyed, the fires on its altars had been extinguished, and the people of God were exiles in a distant land—nothing was more probable than that God would give His people some manifest tokens of His presence and some striking confirmation of the truth of His religion.

There has perhaps never been an occasion when we should more certainly expect the evidences of Divine interposition than during the exile of His people in Babylon. During their long captivity there, it is not easy to conceive of an occasion on which such an interposition would be more likely to occur than when, in the very presence of the monarch and his court, three youths of eminent devotedness to the cause of God were thrown into a burning furnace “because” they steadfastly refused to dishonor Him.