Study Focus: Daniel 3, Rev. 13:11–18, Exod. 20:3–5, Deut. 6:4, 1 Cor. 15:12–26, Hebrews 11.
Introduction: The historical experience of Daniel’s friends offers us a concrete example of what it looks like to be put under pressure because of loyalty to God.
Lesson Themes:
Worship. The most crucial issue at stake in this narrative is worship. Most likely, Nebuchadnezzar was not demanding exclusive worship. The three Hebrews youths could continue to worship their God, Yahweh. Had they just bowed before the image, they would have been spared any trouble.
Faithfulness. The profound convictions of the three Hebrew youths did not allow them to perform an external gesture that would contradict their theology. For them, certain actions had profound consequences.
Deliverance. Although the three exiles had no doubt about God’s ability to save them from the fire, they were not sure if that would happen. This uncertainty is implied in the expression “if not” (Dan. 3:18). So, they chose rather to die than to compromise their loyalty to God.
Life Application: We all face circumstances in our lives that demand we take a strong and definite stand showing clearly where our ultimate loyalty belongs. The most important lesson we learn from the episode of the fiery furnace is not the deliverance of three Hebrew exiles. Rather, the main message lies in the fact that the Lord strengthened them—they did not fear death—and walked with them through the fire.
Part II: Commentary
Worship. Nebuchadnezzar seems to have understood quite well the message conveyed by the multi-metal statue of his dream. He did not want to be only the head of gold. He wanted his kingdom to be the entire statue from head to toe. In pursuit of this goal, he attempted to usurp the attributes of the Creator. So, in making an image (Hebrew: tselem), the king ironically imitated God’s act of creating humanity as an image (tselem) of Himself (Gen. 1:26, 27). So Nebuchadnezzar, consumed by arrogance, built an image. But that was not a simple work of art; it was an object of worship.
And the accusation leveled against the three exiles was that they did not worship the gold image nor serve Nebuchadnezzar’s gods (Dan. 3:12, 14). The plural “gods” suggests that the image may have been a representation of the Babylonian “gods” and not only that of a single deity. The measurements of the image (60 x 6 cubits) evoke the sexagesimal system of Babylon, as opposed to the decimal system followed in Egypt. Moreover, the proportions of the image (10:1) indicate that it did not follow the normal proportions of a human figure (5:1 or 6:1). So unless it was a figure that included a large pedestal, it may have looked more like a gigantic pillar or stele and may have been only partially sculpted.
In promoting such a liturgical event, the king may have intended to secure the allegiance of governors, ministers, etc., to the program and ideology of the empire. In the ancient world, religion and politics were tightly intertwined. So patriotism was expressed by means of adoration of the national gods. Hence, the refusal of the three exiles to worship the gold image was not only an act of religious dissension, but an open rejection of the totalitarian claims of the Babylonian political and religious ideology. The Hebrew captives never would give to the empire what was due to God only.
Faithfulness.
In a warning against idolatry, Moses reminded the Israelites that the “only worthy recipient of Israel’s worship was the God who had brought them out of ‘the iron-smelting furnace, out of Egypt,’ so they could be his inheritance (Deut 4:20; cf. 1 Kgs 8:51; Jer 11:4). Moses implored the people to keep the covenant and, again, not to make any kind of idol. In this second reminder, Moses said the reason they should not succumb to idolatry was because their God ‘is a consuming fire, a jealous God’ (Deut 4:24). Seeing into Israel’s future, Moses told the people if (and when) they did fall into idolatry, God would drive them out of the promised land into lands where idolatry was the order of the day. If the people returned to worship and obey God alone, [H]e would not abandon or destroy them. He would remember [H]is covenant. God had saved them from the furnace of Egyptian bondage to make them [H]is own. In return [H]e required their faithful and exclusive worship.”—Wendy Widder, Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2016), p. 65.
The Hebrew captives took no opportunity to rationalize away their commitment to the true God. They could have simply rationalized their decision in order to avoid a confrontation with the king: “Let’s just bow down to this image, but in our hearts, we’ll remain faithful to God. Who cares if we bow down!” But they did not act that way. It bears mentioning that in the polytheistic environment of the ancient Near East, no deity demanded exclusive loyalty. One could be a devotee of Marduk and also worship, say, Ishtar. Before the exile, many Israelites fell into this trap. They worshiped the Lord, but, at the same time, they sacrificed to Baal and other deities whom they presumed to be more helpful to them in certain areas of life. Only the covenant God of the Hebrews demanded exclusivity from His worshipers (Exod. 20:3–5, Deut. 6:4); and the Hebrew captives lived up to this demand.
Deliverance. The deliverance of the three Hebrew exiles owes nothing to the good will of the king. It was a supernatural intervention of God. That the furnace was heated “seven times” more (Dan. 3:19) may be a figurative way to emphasize maximum heat. Most likely the king wanted to make sure that no one would escape such a heat. If a low fire would extend the duration of their punishment and their torture, a more intense fire should kill them immediately. It appears that Nebuchadnezzar intended to make their execution a public display of the cost of contesting his authority. Interestingly, Jeremiah mentions two false prophets that were “roasted in the fire” by Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 29:21, 22).
Although the three Jewish men firmly believed that God was able to protect them, they also knew that God did not always do so (Dan. 3:17, 18). “The laments among the Psalms testify to this. In [Dan.] 7:21, 23; 8:24; 11:32–35 it is made clear that there are times when the faithful people of God are called upon to endure suffering, sometimes even martyrdom. It is in response to the seeming injustice of this, and the apparent impugning of either God’s faithfulness to his people or his sovereignty, that the promise of resurrection (. . .) and judgment comes (12:1–4). Death is no barrier to either God’s faithfulness or his sovereignty.”—E. C. Lucas, “Daniel,” in T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner, eds., New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 235.
One point that deserves a comment is the conspicuous absence of Daniel. Christian commentators and the Talmud have advanced several hypotheses as to the reason for his absence: (1) Daniel was away on business; (2) he had permission from the king to withdraw; (3) he stood so high with Nebuchadnezzar that no one dared to complain about him; (4) his presence may not have been required; (5) he may have been sick; (6) Daniel was no longer involved in government; (7) Daniel was present, and he briefly bowed before the image, but the Lord does not let his name occur here because of his later faithfulness; (8) God kept Daniel away so that people would not say “that they were delivered through his merit”; (9) Daniel avoided the scene to keep from fulfilling the prophecy that “the graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire” (Deut. 7:25); (10) Nebuchadnezzar “let Daniel depart, lest people say he has burnt his god in fire.” This summary is from Peter A. Steveson, Daniel (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 2008), p. 56.
Although some options may seem more reasonable than others, the fact is that we do not know where Daniel was during that time. But on the basis of Daniel’s character as portrayed in Scripture, we can be sure that Daniel either did not worship or was not present at the ceremony.
Part III: Life Application
Like the three Hebrew exiles, Mordecai also refused to bow down before Haman (Esther 3:1–5). In both cases, the Lord brought deliverance to His servants. However, this does not happen always. Isaiah and John the Baptist sealed their faith with their own lives. In light of these outcomes, do you feel prepared to reap the unpleasant consequences of your rightful convictions? Why, or why not?
The previous experiences of the exiles both in the matter of the king’s food (Daniel 1) and the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Daniel 2) somehow prepared the exiles to face the test of fire. What previous tests and experiences have you had that prepared you for bigger challenges later?
This week’s lesson may foster some self-examination. Ask your class members to reflect upon the following:
What are some things that now, today, we are tempted to worship? In what ways are we, even as Christians, slowly but surely getting caught up in worshiping something other than God?
Where do you draw the line between unswerving commitment to the Lord and fanaticism?
When it comes to your relationship with those who still do not know the Lord, is there a place for compromise? If so, in what way and under what circumstances? What things, if any, can we or should we compromise? How can we tell if we are compromising or simply being prudent?
Would you jeopardize your life for refusing to do a very simple act? If not, why couldn’t you conform outwardly while inwardly feeling moral reservations?
Which is better, to die for truth, or to avoid crises and live to continue our witness? Explain.
Adjust My Preferences
Welcome! Please set your reading preferences below.
You can access this panel later by clicking the
preference icon
in the top right of the page.
Key Text: Daniel 3:17, 18
Study Focus: Daniel 3, Rev. 13:11–18, Exod. 20:3–5, Deut. 6:4, 1 Cor. 15:12–26, Hebrews 11.
Introduction: The historical experience of Daniel’s friends offers us a concrete example of what it looks like to be put under pressure because of loyalty to God.
Lesson Themes:
Life Application: We all face circumstances in our lives that demand we take a strong and definite stand showing clearly where our ultimate loyalty belongs. The most important lesson we learn from the episode of the fiery furnace is not the deliverance of three Hebrew exiles. Rather, the main message lies in the fact that the Lord strengthened them—they did not fear death—and walked with them through the fire.
Part II: Commentary
And the accusation leveled against the three exiles was that they did not worship the gold image nor serve Nebuchadnezzar’s gods (Dan. 3:12, 14). The plural “gods” suggests that the image may have been a representation of the Babylonian “gods” and not only that of a single deity. The measurements of the image (60 x 6 cubits) evoke the sexagesimal system of Babylon, as opposed to the decimal system followed in Egypt. Moreover, the proportions of the image (10:1) indicate that it did not follow the normal proportions of a human figure (5:1 or 6:1). So unless it was a figure that included a large pedestal, it may have looked more like a gigantic pillar or stele and may have been only partially sculpted.
In promoting such a liturgical event, the king may have intended to secure the allegiance of governors, ministers, etc., to the program and ideology of the empire. In the ancient world, religion and politics were tightly intertwined. So patriotism was expressed by means of adoration of the national gods. Hence, the refusal of the three exiles to worship the gold image was not only an act of religious dissension, but an open rejection of the totalitarian claims of the Babylonian political and religious ideology. The Hebrew captives never would give to the empire what was due to God only.
In a warning against idolatry, Moses reminded the Israelites that the “only worthy recipient of Israel’s worship was the God who had brought them out of ‘the iron-smelting furnace, out of Egypt,’ so they could be his inheritance (Deut 4:20; cf. 1 Kgs 8:51; Jer 11:4). Moses implored the people to keep the covenant and, again, not to make any kind of idol. In this second reminder, Moses said the reason they should not succumb to idolatry was because their God ‘is a consuming fire, a jealous God’ (Deut 4:24). Seeing into Israel’s future, Moses told the people if (and when) they did fall into idolatry, God would drive them out of the promised land into lands where idolatry was the order of the day. If the people returned to worship and obey God alone, [H]e would not abandon or destroy them. He would remember [H]is covenant. God had saved them from the furnace of Egyptian bondage to make them [H]is own. In return [H]e required their faithful and exclusive worship.”—Wendy Widder, Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2016), p. 65.
The Hebrew captives took no opportunity to rationalize away their commitment to the true God. They could have simply rationalized their decision in order to avoid a confrontation with the king: “Let’s just bow down to this image, but in our hearts, we’ll remain faithful to God. Who cares if we bow down!” But they did not act that way. It bears mentioning that in the polytheistic environment of the ancient Near East, no deity demanded exclusive loyalty. One could be a devotee of Marduk and also worship, say, Ishtar. Before the exile, many Israelites fell into this trap. They worshiped the Lord, but, at the same time, they sacrificed to Baal and other deities whom they presumed to be more helpful to them in certain areas of life. Only the covenant God of the Hebrews demanded exclusivity from His worshipers (Exod. 20:3–5, Deut. 6:4); and the Hebrew captives lived up to this demand.
Although the three Jewish men firmly believed that God was able to protect them, they also knew that God did not always do so (Dan. 3:17, 18). “The laments among the Psalms testify to this. In [Dan.] 7:21, 23; 8:24; 11:32–35 it is made clear that there are times when the faithful people of God are called upon to endure suffering, sometimes even martyrdom. It is in response to the seeming injustice of this, and the apparent impugning of either God’s faithfulness to his people or his sovereignty, that the promise of resurrection (. . .) and judgment comes (12:1–4). Death is no barrier to either God’s faithfulness or his sovereignty.”—E. C. Lucas, “Daniel,” in T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner, eds., New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 235.
One point that deserves a comment is the conspicuous absence of Daniel. Christian commentators and the Talmud have advanced several hypotheses as to the reason for his absence: (1) Daniel was away on business; (2) he had permission from the king to withdraw; (3) he stood so high with Nebuchadnezzar that no one dared to complain about him; (4) his presence may not have been required; (5) he may have been sick; (6) Daniel was no longer involved in government; (7) Daniel was present, and he briefly bowed before the image, but the Lord does not let his name occur here because of his later faithfulness; (8) God kept Daniel away so that people would not say “that they were delivered through his merit”; (9) Daniel avoided the scene to keep from fulfilling the prophecy that “the graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire” (Deut. 7:25); (10) Nebuchadnezzar “let Daniel depart, lest people say he has burnt his god in fire.” This summary is from Peter A. Steveson, Daniel (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 2008), p. 56.
Although some options may seem more reasonable than others, the fact is that we do not know where Daniel was during that time. But on the basis of Daniel’s character as portrayed in Scripture, we can be sure that Daniel either did not worship or was not present at the ceremony.
Part III: Life Application