Q. Who was the fourth man in the fire with Shadrach,
Meshach, and Abednego?
A. The dispute regarding this verse is, to some
extent, based on variations in the translation of this verse. The Christian Standard Bible represents how many translators have translated this
verse since the English Revised Version Bible of
1881-1885:
He exclaimed, “Look! I see four men, not tied, walking around in the fire unharmed; and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.”
As far as the details of the correct translation
of this verse, I will leave that argument for Hebrew & Aramaic scholars. The
interpretation and understanding of the verse and context includes considering
what Nebuchadnezzar knew, but the correct translation of the verse is not
dependent on what Nebuchadnezzar knew. It will be obvious that some translators come down
on one side of the issue – “the son of God” – and some come down on the other
side of the issue – “a son of the gods.” Rather than enter that argument, let’s
look at the context surrounding the statement made by King Nebuchadnezzar and where
that points our understanding. It is better to stick as closely as possible to
the statements in the context, without doing too much guessing.
Here is some of what King Nebuchadnezzar knew,
based on some statements in the book of Daniel.
- Daniel 2:27-28, Daniel 2:47 – The king had experienced some of the truth of Jehovah, through Daniel’s gift of prophecy in describing and then interpreting Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. His understanding of the God of the Hebrews at this point would have been rudimentary, but not non-existent.
- Daniel 3:15-17; Daniel 3:26 – The king knew that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego served the most high God. They told him that God – the one they served – was able to deliver them, and that he will deliver them (one way or another).
- Daniel 3:28 – Nebuchadnezzar says the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego sent his angel to deliver them. In this King’s mind “the Son of God” and “his angel” are the same. He is talking about the same person/appearance.[i]
In his Notes
on the Bible Albert Barnes speaks of “two inquiries which arise in
regard to this expression [the Son of God, rlv].”
First, what did the king mean, that is, who did he think it was in the fire? Second,
who was it in the fire with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, actually? There is
no reason to suppose that King Nebuchadnezzar understood anything distinctly about
the “Godhead” of the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Nebuchadnezzar knew
that the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego was distinct from the gods of
the Babylonians. These three asserted the power of their God to deliver them
from the king. Nebuchadnezzar did not know “the Son of God.” Nevertheless, he did
not mean “a son of the gods” of the Babylonians, based on the context of the
conversation before and after the three Hebrew children were thrown in the
fire. A son of the Babylonian gods was not whom they said would come, and would not have been whom Nebuchadnezzar expected.
Some commentators – such as Jamieson-Faussett-Brown
Commentary or Matthew Poole’s Synopsis – posit this consideration: that
Nebuchadnezzar spoke the truth of who was in the fire without really
understanding the truth of what he said. This would compare to Caiaphas’s
prophecy that “one must die for the people” (John
11:49-52), or Pilate’s superscription on the cross of Jesus (Luke
23:38).
Here is Jamieson-Faussett-Brown’s explanation:
Unconsciously, like Saul, Caiaphas (John 11:49-52), and Pilate, he is made to utter divine truths. “Son of God” in his mouth means only an “angel” from heaven, as Daniel 3:28 proves. Compare Job 1:6; Job 38:7; Psalm 34:7, Psalm 34:8; and the probably heathen centurion’s exclamation (Matthew 27:54).
The Son of God is an accurate translation that
fits the context. It is not necessary for Nebuchadnezzar to have a clear
theological understanding of New Testament revelation yet to come or even a
distinct view of present Hebrew monotheism for his statement to be correct. The
fourth
man walking in the fire was the Son of God, appearing
with his people before his incarnation.
[i] It is not unusual for
expositors to consider “the angel,” “his angel,” to be Old Testament theophanies
or Christophanies (of the pre-incarnate Son of God).
1 comment:
The following comments are from someone who favors the modern translation, but admits that either phrasing are considered grammatically correct. Some of you readers might find this interesting.
“The KJV renders this phrase as ‘the Son of God,’ an apparent allusion to the second person of the Trinity. Either the NIV or KJV translation is possible grammatically. In biblical Aramaic the plural noun ʼělāhîn may be assumed to have the same force as ʼělōhîm in biblical Hebrew, which can be rendered as a plural, ‘gods,’ or as a singular, ‘God,’ when denoting the true God, the plural form being an attempt to express the divine fullness and majesty.” The New American Commentary: Volume 18, Daniel, Stephen R. Miller, Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 1994, p. 123
Though he prefers the modern “son of the gods” over the singular KJV translation, yet concerning the singular usage Miller oppositely notes, “the author would be expected to use the Aramaic expression in a fashion similar to his native Hebrew, particularly if he was writing for a Hebrew-speaking audience.” The New American Commentary: Volume 18, Daniel, Stephen R. Miller, Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 1994, p. 123
“From the Christian perspective, we know that the preincarnate Christ did appear to individuals in the Old Testament. Most likely the fourth man in the fire was the angel of the Lord, God himself in the person of his Son Jesus Christ, a view held by many expositors.” The New American Commentary: Volume 18, Daniel, Stephen R. Miller, Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 1994, pp. 123-124
Post a Comment