22.  Therefore because the king’s commandment was urgent, and the furnace exceeding hot, the flame of the fire slew those men that took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. 23.  And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace. 24.  Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?  They answered and said unto the king, True, O king. 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 form of the fourth is like the Son of God.’—­DANIEL iii. 13-25.

The way in which the ‘Chaldeans’ describe the three recusants, betrays their motive in accusing them.  ’Certain Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon’ could not but be envied and hated, since their promotion wounded both national pride and professional jealousy.  The form of the accusation was skilfully calculated to rouse a despot’s rage.  ‘They have not regarded thee’ is the head and front of their offending.  The inflammable temper of the king blazed up according to expectation, as is the way with tyrants.  His passion of rage is twice mentioned (vs. 13, 19), and in one of the instances, is noted as distorting his features.  What a picture of ungoverned fury as of one who had never been thwarted!  It is the true portrait of an Eastern despot.

Where was Daniel in this hour of danger?  His absence is not accounted for, and conjecture is useless; but the fact that he has no share in the incident seems to raise a presumption in favour of the disputed historical character of the Book, which, if it had been fiction, could scarcely have left its hero out of so brilliant an instance of faithfulness to Jehovah.

Nebuchadnezzar’s vehement address to the three culprits is very characteristic and instructive.  Fixed determination to enforce his mandate, anger which breaks into threats that were by no means idle, and a certain wish to build a bridge for the escape of servants who had done their work well, are curiously mingled in it.  His question, best rendered as in the Revised Version, ‘Is it of purpose ... that ye’ do so and so? seems meant to suggest that they may repair their fault by pleading inadvertence, accident, or the like, and that He will accept the transparent excuse.  The renewed offer of an opportunity of worship does not say what will happen should they obey; and the omission makes the clause more emphatic, as insisting on the act, and slurring over the self-evident result.

On the other hand, in the next clause the act is slightly touched (’if ye worship not’); and all the stress comes on the grim description of the consequence.  This monarch, who has been accustomed to bend men’s wills like reeds, tries to shake these three obstinate rebels by terror, and opens the door of the furnace, as it were, to let them hear it roar.  He finishes with a flash of insolence which, if not blasphemy, at least betrays his belief that he was stronger than any god of his conquered subject peoples.