Author: Lamar Austin

Every once in awhile, a person shows their complete dedication to God through an amazing statement of faith.  Think of Esther’s “If I perish, I perish,” or Martin Luther’s “Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise.  God help me.  Amen.”  Or think of the bold declarations of faith from Ruth and Mary, the mother of Jesus.

It is to this amazing declaration of faith from the three Hebrews that we come to in our study of the book of Daniel.  We read them in Daniel 3:17-18.

17 If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. 18 But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.”

These three Hebrew men were confident that their God had the power to deliver them out of any situation, no matter how impossible it might seem, just like God had rescued Israel from Pharoah’s armies or David from Goliath.  In fact, having grown up under the reign of godly king Josiah, they had likely been introduced to the narrative of David’s fight against Goliath.  There David had said, “The LORD who delivered me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine.” (1 Sam. 17:37).

Biblical faith has the assurance to say, “I know my God is able to deliver me.”  We are told to pray, “Deliver us from evil.”  So faith has the confidence to say, “I believe that my God will deliver me.”  But it also has the submission to say, “But even if he does not, I will still trust him.”   Strong faith is not presumption.  It doesn’t presume that just because God can, means that He will.  They had strong confidence in God’s ability and power to save them, but they submitted to his willingness to save them.  It wasn’t “Could He?”  but “Would He?”  There were confident in God’s ability, but did not presume that it was His will.

As Iain Duguid says, “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego did not presume to predict what the outcome would be in their case.  If God were our servant, or our accomplice, he would be predictable; he would always do our bidding.  Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego understood that since God is sovereign, however, it was his choice whether he opted to be glorified in their deaths or through their dramatic deliverance.  Either way, it didn’t make a difference to their decision.  Whether they were miraculously delivered or left to burn in the fire, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abendego would not compromise their commitment to the Lord” (“Daniel” in Reformed Expository Commentary, p. 53).

It’s as if they said: “We don’t know what our God will do, O king; you may turn us into puddles of carbon; but in one sense it doesn’t matter; the bottom line is that we will not serve your gods or worship your image.”  So, although they were unsure of God’s circumstantial will (whether they escape) but they were confident of God’s revealed will (‘You shall have no other gods besides me’).  They did not lose sight of the most crucial matter.  What mattered most is not whether they would be delivered, but whether they would be obedient!

The verb for worship (Aram., sĕgid) appears eleven times in this chapter (5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 [twice], 18, 28), while serve (pĕlaḥ, in the sense of ‘serving’ a deity) occurs five times (12, 14, 17, 18, 28). A total of sixteen usages hammers the point home: what really matters is not security but worship. And the three friends never forget this (18). (Dale Ralph Davis, the Message of Daniel: His Kingdom Cannot Fail, ed. Alec Motyer and Derek Tidball, The Bible Speaks Today (Nottingham, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2013), p. 56).

“Nebuchadnezzar had just declared that no god could deliver them out of his hands, and now they were replaying stoutly that their God could do so.  They were ready to risk their al in their earnestness to give a proper witness to their God” (Leon Wood, A Commentary on Daniel, p. 88).

The “ability” in question here is God’s ethical ability, or willingness.  It is similar to the statement in Genesis 37:4, that says “when his brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, they hated him and could not speak peacefully to him,” the “could not speak” does not refer to physical inabilities, but to willfulness, they “would not speak peacefully to him.”  Likewise, when Jesus prays in the Garden of Gethsemane, he utters, “If it be possible, let this cup pass from me” (Matt. 26:39).  “In terms of absolute possibility, the Father was certainly able to deliver the Son from drinking the cup.  Yet given the Father’s will to save sinners, the cross became the consequent absolute necessity, for that goal could not be accomplished in any other manner” (Iain Duguid, Daniel: Reformed Expository Commentary, p. 52).

They faced a challenging decision that put their faith to the ultimate test.  There was a lot of pressure to conform here.  I have to ask himself: What would I have done?

They knew their God to be a consuming fire (Exod. 24:17; 33:5; Lev. 10:2; Num. 11:1; 16:35; Deut. 4:24; 5:25; Heb. 10:31; 12:29).  They also knew Nebuchadnezzar’s threat of being cast into the furnace was real (Jer. 29:21-23).  But they elected to face a pagan consuming fire rather than a divine consuming fire.

This is similar to what the beleaguered Job said in Job 13:15, “Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him.”  Even more commendable than their stout faith that God could deliver them, was their trust in God even if He would not deliver them, if that is possible.

Leon Wood identifies two matters that stand out for notice:

• First, the young men recognized that God’s will might be different from what they would find pleasant, and they were willing to have it so, without complaining. Too often Christians are not willing to have God’s will different from their own, and then do complain most vigorously when it proves to be that way.
• Second, they did not make their own obedience contingent upon God’s doing what which was pleasant to them. They were ready to obey, whether God chose to deliver them from the furnace or not.  In other words, they found their object of affection in God’s Himself, not in what God did for them. (A Commentary on Daniel, p. 89).

In fact, they were ready and willing to die rather than compromise their allegiance to the true God.

Studdert Kennedy was a chaplain during World War I.  His role often thrust him into danger on the front lines of battle.  One day, while traveling through war-ravaged France, he wrote this letter to his young son:

The first prayer I want my son to learn to say for me is not “God keep daddy safe,” but “God made daddy brave, and if he has hard things to do make him strong to do them.”  Life and death don’t matter…right and wrong do.  Daddy dead is daddy still, but daddy dishonored before God is something awful, too bad for words.  I supposed you’ll like to put in a bit about safety too, old chap, and mother would.  Well, put it in, but afterwards, always afterwards, because it does not really matter near to much” (Geoffrey Anketell Studdert Kennedy, The Hardest Part, pp. 110-111).

Athanasius was one of the early church fathers.  We are indebted to him for the purity of the doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ against Arianism.  The story is told that someone came to him and said, “Athanasius, don’t you know that the emperor is against you, the church is against you, and the whole world is against you?  Athanasius answered, “Then I am against the whole world.”  A phrase was coined that became rather famous in the early church: Athanasius contra mundi: Athanasius against the whole world.

Fortunately, none of these three men had to stand alone against the world; they stood together.  Dan Schaeffer in Defining Moments points to the story of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego as successful because they were making a stand together.  He says…

“An incredibly powerful dynamic occurs when Christians stand together.  We feed off each other’s strengths and faith.  An act of courage that might seem impossible on our own is made easier when we are with others of like mind and faith.  One of the greatest benefits available to us is our close Christian friendships.  They can be the determining factor to us to make the right decision” (Dan Schaeffer, Defining Moments, p. 142).

He says that with others we can face our fears with new courage.  I don’t know if there is anything more scary than dying in a fire (except maybe drowning).  Both of them are excruciating ways to die.  Even the bravest among us have things we fear.  But the combined faith and encouragement of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego enabled them to have a collective courage (Eccl. 4:9-12).  That is why it is so important to be a part of a church fellowship or a church youth group.

Second, you will stand your ground with greater conviction.  This is a God that these three young men had “served” for years.  Many claim to believe, but few actually serve.  And what an encouragement it was to each of them, when the instruments sounded, to look to their right or left and see someone else standing with them!

Third, together our faith can be taken to a higher level.  When they were thrown into the fiery furnace they had their faith validated as few ever have.  They walked with God in the fire!  Even Nebuchadnezzar praised their faith, seeing that they were committed to the one true God.  Iron sharpens iron (Prov. 27:17).

Faith in God may not translate into victory in every circumstance (see Heb. 11:32-39).  To these three men the outcome was irrelevant, for what was at stake was not God’s ability or their own lives, but their faith and obedience to serve Him regardless of the cost.  His glory was at stake.

We all love the first half of this equation (that God can deliver).  We love it when God answers our prayers and gives a miraculous rescue or healing.  Our Charismatic brothers and sisters have great confidence in God’s ability to heal and do miracles.  We shouldn’t be afraid to cry out to God to show His miraculous power and show his amazing compassion to heal or to do miracles.  In other words, don’t back down; don’t hesitate.  Storm the gates of heaven!

But it seems that very few Christians can maintain this firm belief that God can and will deliver us while simultaneously possessing a submissive attitude to his sovereign will if it differs from our request.  These three Hebrews knew that God could deliver them, IF He wanted to.

These men give us then a full-balanced picture of faith: faith knows the power of God (he is able, 17), guards the freedom of God (but if not …, 18a), and holds the truth of God (we will not serve your gods, 18b).  There are some in our day, however, who would not be entirely happy with this ‘faith’. In their view, faith involves being far more cocksure about God’s ways.  Their kind of ‘faith’ is allergic to any uncertainty about details.  If they could re-write the chapter, they would have the friends declare: ‘Nebuchadnezzar, we are going to call down God’s deliverance; we, O king, are going to bind the fire.’  But Bible faith doesn’t do that. Faith does not predict God’s ways; it simply holds to God’s word (in this case, Exod. 20:3); faith obeys God’s truth, it does not manipulate God’s hand; faith is not required to plot God’s course but only to obey God’s command.  Faith’s finest hour may be when it can oppose Nebuchadnezzar’s three words (burning fiery furnace) with three of its own: ‘But if not. (Dale Ralph Davis, The Message of Daniel: His Kingdom Cannot Fail, ed. Alec Motyer and Derek Tidball, The Bible Speaks Today (Nottingham, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2013), p. 56).  Thus, the real miracle of Daniel 3 has already happened.

Walter Luthi was right: “That there are three men who do not worship in Nebuchadnezzar’s totalitarian state, is a miracle of God.  The miracle of the confessing Church.  That the three were not devoured by the fire is no greater miracle.  Suppose the fiery furnace had consumed them.  The real miracle would have happened just the same” (Luthi, p. 50).

“But if not.” What a poignant phrase. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were resolved to obey God, whether or not he chose to save them.  They knew he wasn’t obligated to help them.

In the summer of 1940, more than 350,000 soldiers—most of them British—were trapped at Dunkirk.  The German forces were on their way, and they had the capacity to wipe out the British Expeditionary Force.  When it seemed certain that the Allied forces at Dunkirk were about to be massacred, a British naval officer cabled just three words back to London: “But if not.”

“But if not.”  These words were instantly recognizable to the people who were accustomed to hearing the scriptures read in church.  They knew the story told in the book of Daniel.  The message in those three little words was clear: The situation was desperate.  The allied forces were trapped.  It would take a miracle to save them, but they were determined not to give in.  One simple three word phrase communicated all that.

For some reason, people are still not sure why, the Axis powers hesitated.  They backed off, briefly, and what’s known as the Miracle of Dunkirk took place.  British families and fishermen heard about the poignant telegraphed cry for help, and they answered.  They answered with merchant marine boats, with pleasure cruisers, and even with small fishing boats.  By a miracle, they evacuated more than 338,000 soldiers and took them to safety. (https://robertbsloan.com/2013/03/11/but-if-not-the-miracle-of-dunkirk/)

“My God will deliver me — but if not, still I will trust him.  The Lord is strong enough to rescue me if he chooses.  But if not, I will not give in to sin.  My God is able to heal me if he decides it best.  But if not, I will not forsake my confession of faith.  My God can undo this disability if he but speaks the word.  But if not, I will trust in the God who will raise me from the dead.”

What amazes me in the statement of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego is not that they believe that God “is able to deliver” and “will deliver” them, but that even if he does not, we will still be obedient to God.

Leon Wood states: “Two matters stand out for notice.  First, the young men recognized that God’s will might be different from what they would find pleasant, and they were willing to have it so, without complaining.  Too often Christians are not willing to have God’s will different from their own, and then do complain most vigorously when it proves to be that way.  Second, they did not make their own obedience contingent upon God’s doing that which was pleasant to them” (Leon Wood, A Commentary on Daniel).

We all believe that God is powerful enough and compassionate enough to grant our request (as long as it is not selfish, James 4:3).  Even if God does not answer our earnest prayers, He is still able to do “immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine” (Eph. 3:20).  But are we willing to trust Him to work out His will as He has determined, submitting to His will even if that differs from our own?

Far too many people lose faith in God precisely at this point.  They cry out to God for healing, for rescue, for a miracle, for reconciliation, and it doesn’t happen.  Because they permitted God no alternative, when God didn’t come through exactly as they requested, they lose faith in God (or sometimes blame themselves for not having enough faith).  Neither perspective is helpful.

But God in His sovereignty does not always answer our prayers exactly as we desire them.  First of all, He is far wiser then we are and knows whether or not this is really good for us.  Ruth Bell Graham, married to Billy Graham, said that “God has not always answered my prayers. If He had, I would have married the wrong man — several times!”  I assume that was before she met Billy.

We need to remember that faith is not a rabbit’s foot, and God is not a genie who is bound to do for us whatever we want.  God is sovereign.  He has promised to “work all things together for good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose,” so we can trust Him and remain obedient to Him even if He does not answer our prayers as we think He ought.

We must pray with confidence in God’s power, but also pray with a submission to His wisdom.  Matt Chandler, in his article “My Prayer for the Furnace,” was occasioned by the discovery of a brain tumor and all his treatments for that.  He says, based on this passage, that we pray (1) believing that our God can heal, (2) and we pray believing that our God will heal, but (3) we continue to pray even if our God does not heal.  So he ends his article with this prayer: Lord, I know you can heal.  Lord, I believe you will heal.  And Lord, if you don’t heal now, bring glory to your name and keep my faith in you.

Such confidence and submission are powerfully captured in the words of Samuel Rodigast written in 1675:

What e ‘er my God ordains is right:

His holy will abideth;

I will be still whate ‘er he doth,

And follow where he guideth.

He is my God; though dark my road,

He holds me that I shall not fall:

Wherefore to him I leave it all.

We are in Daniel 3, that amazing story, a true, historical narrative, of how God miraculously preserved Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego from Nebuchadnezzar’s fiery furnace.  Having erected a 90 foot statue and required everyone to bow to it, several jealous public officials noticed that out of a sea of bowing people, three men stood tall and erect, possibly even turning their backs to the statue.  These jealous officials attributed malicious motives to their civil disobedience.  Along with rightly acknowledging that they were not bowing to or serving the Babylonian gods, they mistakenly included that they were being disloyal to Nebuchadnezzar.

However, that was not true, as the last two chapters have demonstrated.  It is clear from previous interactions that they had normally paid high regard for the king.  In verses 13-18 we see the king’s angry response and the young men’s amazing statement of trust in God and commitment to obey God alone.

13 Then Nebuchadnezzar in furious rage commanded that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego be brought.  So they brought these men before the king. 14 Nebuchadnezzar answered and said to them, “Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, that you do not serve my gods or worship the golden image that I have set up? 15 Now if you are ready when you hear the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, to fall down and worship the image that I have made, well and good.  But if you do not worship, you shall immediately be cast into a burning fiery furnace.  And who is the god who will deliver you out of my hands?”

16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered and said to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. 17 If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. 18 But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.”

Would you and I be able to take such a bold stand for the Lord with the very possibility of our lives being at stake?  Who would want to withstand a fiery furnace?  I can think of two horrible ways to die—in a fire, or drowning in water.  Both of those are unthinkable.

So what was it that kept them faithful to God despite the high stakes?

Today, I want us to notice the reaction of the king.  Verse 13 says that Nebuchadnezzar was now “in a furious rage.”  How dare they despise him!  The personal nature of his reaction suggests that the statue embodies not only a religious and a national commitment but a personal one.  His expectation is, “You shall have no other god but me” (Baldwin).  You know, the prouder we get, the more important we think we are, the more readily we take any act that doesn’t applaud us or appreciate us or serve us as an act worthy of severest punishment.  I’ve known people of furious rage and I’ve experienced it being directed at me.  It usually comes from a sense of importance (pride) that, in their eyes, has been attacked.  So they attack in return.

Had Nebuchadnezzar not put forth great effort in making sure that this very thing did not happen?  Did he not make clear the consequences of disobedience?  Any parent would have been equally frustrated when clear instructions along with possible consequences had been given ahead of time, and the children still refuse to obey.

The king’s reaction, therefore, was not surprising: in fury he ordered that “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego be brought.”  Given their knowledge of the king’s decree and their refusal to heed it, they surely knew what this summons would involve and how it would end.

That is what makes their statement of resolve so amazing.  They were to be given another chance, and yet they stand firm in their resolve not to compromise.

In verse 14, “Nebuchadnezzar answered and said to them, ‘Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, that you do not serve my gods or worship the golden image that I have set up?’”

Now, let’s give Nebuchadnezzar some credit here.  He doesn’t just accept the rumor-mongering of the Chaldeans at face value.  He made sure of it by interviewing the young men.  He got the facts of the case.  That is so important.  After all, Solomon says in Proverbs 18:17, “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.”  In other words, it is always best to listen to both sides of the story.

But, this was also a greater test for Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego.  David Guzik notes: It is one thing to make a stand for God; it is a greater thing to stick to your stand when pointedly asked, “Is it true?”  Peter followed Jesus after His arrest, but he wilted and denied Jesus when asked, “Is it true?”  Nebuchadnezzar was giving these three young men the opportunity to deny the charge if they wished.

Nebuchadnezzar asked the three men if they had indeed refused to worship the image.  It is to be noted that he did not repeat the first accusation of the Chaldeans.  He mentioned only nonservice and non-worship of his god.  This may be a clue that he now recognizes them as Daniel’s friends and remembered from past experience that they had, indeed, honored him.

He had granted them a standing in his court (1:20) and promoted them over the affairs of the province (2:49), yet despite his favors they now seemed to be defying him.  Although the herald had warned, “Whoever does not fall down and worship shall immediately be cast into a burning fiery furnace” (3:6), the king gave the three Jews one more opportunity to worship the image.  He offered them a second chance.  If they did obey this time, all would be “well and good.”  But if they persisted in their initial refusal, they would “immediately be cast into a burning fiery furnace.”  Their high position in the province did not exempt them from the king’s decree.  They couldn’t expect special privileges.

Calming down for a moment, the king looked at these three young, promising lads whom he had recently promoted to a high place in government (2:49) and smiled. “Boys, surely there must be some misunderstanding, so I will give you a second chance (v. 15).  “Just bow down when you hear the music this time, okay?”  You can sense his pleading.  Maybe this is where the phrase “turn or burn” comes from!

We can imagine the enormous pressure on Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego to compromise.  Everything in front of them – the king, the furnace, the music, their compatriots, their competitors – all of it conspired to convince them to compromise.  Yet God was more real to them than any of those things.  They lived “before the face of God,” coram deo.  They feared God more than they feared the fire.

Spurgeon says, “Do not judge the situation by the king’s threat and by the heat of the burning fiery furnace, but by the everlasting God and the eternal life which awaits you.  Let not flute, harp, and sackbut fascinate you, but hearken to the music of the glorified.  Men frown at you, but you can see God smiling on you, and so you are not moved.”  Stay true to your God!

Nebuchadnezzar was so confident of his sovereign power that he boldly mocked the possibility of any deliverance: “Who is the god who will deliver you out of my hands?” (Dan. 3:15).

This arrogant question sets up the story of the deliverance by focusing the issue on the power of their God.  Jerome answers the question: “That same God whose servant thou didst recently worship and whom thou didst assert to be truly God of gods and Lord of kings” back in the previous chapter.

Nebuchadnezzar thought nothing of insulting all gods with this statement.  He is more of a secularist or a humanist than a theist.  The god he really believes in is himself, not the gods of Babylon.  “My hands are the only ones that will make a difference here.”

Nebuchadnezzar, like Pharoah and Sennacherib before him, made the mistake of slighting the power of Israel’s God:

But Pharaoh said, “Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice and let Israel go?  I do not know the LORD, and moreover, I will not let Israel go.” (Exodus 5:2)

Who among all the gods of the lands have delivered their lands out of my hand, that the LORD should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand?'” (2 Kings 18:35)

Nebuchadnezzar’s series of victories over his enemies had led him to conclude he and his patron gods were unstoppable, he was the prime moving force of the universe.  In this, he was like Sennacherib and likely other ancient kings when they claimed:

Beware lest Hezekiah mislead you by saying, “The LORD will deliver us.”  Has any of the gods of the nations delivered his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria?  [implied answer: a resounding “NO!”]  Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad?  Where are the gods of Sepharvaim?  Have they delivered Samaria out of my hand?  Who among all the gods of these lands have delivered their lands out of my hand, that the LORD should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand?'” (Isaiah 36:18-20)

In other words, if nobody else’s gods could deliver them, then who are you to believe that your own God is capable of delivering you?

But Nebuchadnezzar would soon discover, as Pharoah and Sennacherib had before him, that the God of the universe was listening to his challenge and would respond with judgment (Daniel 4:30):

this is the word that the LORD has spoken concerning him: “‘She despises you, she scorns you– the virgin daughter of Zion; she wags her head behind you– the daughter of Jerusalem.  “‘Whom have you mocked and reviled?  Against whom have you raised your voice and lifted your eyes to the heights?  Against the Holy One of Israel! (Isa. 37:22-23)

The foundational shift in Nebuchadnezzar’s attitude toward Daniel’s God that he had exhibited at the end of the previous chapter (Dan. 2:47) only seems possible if a significant time period has intervened.  There he had seemed almost ready to bow his knee to Daniel’s God, whereas here he flippantly disregards His very existence.

We are led to inquire what has caused this radical change against the God of the Jews.  Was Nebuchadnezzar not sincere when he made his confession to Daniel, or had subsequent events caused him to change his mind?  We must not forget that the Dream of Nebuchadnezzar had occurred twenty years before, and that in the meantime, he had taken Jerusalem the second time (B. C. 598) and carried captive the majority of its inhabitants, including many of the sacred vessels of the Temple, and furthermore, he had besieged the city the third time (B. C. 587), took and destroyed it, and burned the Temple, and left the Holy Land in desolation.  As Oriental Monarchs believed that their victories were a triumph of their “gods” over the “gods” of their vanquished foes, it would be conclusive evidence to Nebuchadnezzar that his victories over the earthly Capital of Jehovah, and the destruction of the Temple, meant that Jehovah was not the supreme Deity, but that his own God “Merodach” was. (Clarence Larkin, The Book of Daniel).

It would be very natural, given all his conquests over Jerusalem itself, that he had come to regard his god, Marduk, as superior in every way to the Jewish God, Yahweh.

So this is the reaction of king Nebuchadnezzar.  He reacted with “furious rage,” but settled down to give them another opportunity to bow down to his god, ending with this challenge which insulted their God.

Do you realize how much pressure these men were under to now bow down to the statue?  There was the pressure of authority.  This was the command of their king, the most powerful man on earth, who had the power to condemn them to death.

Secondly, everyone around them was bowing down, including possibly some other Jewish brethren.  When our children claim, “Everybody’s doing it” we can hardly take that at face value.  Maybe a few of their friends are doing it.  But that creates enough pressure in their lives to want to do it, and, let’s admit it, in ours as well.  But in this case, literally “everybody’s doing it,” making it extremely difficult to not join the crowd.

That pressure mounts here with the intimidating anger of their king.  I find this amazingly difficult, to stand against the withering gaze and loud clamor or vicious words of someone in charge, someone we’re supposed to look up to and follow.

Look again at their response:

16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered and said to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. 17 If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. 18 But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.”

Isn’t that an amazing response?

We have here one of the greatest statements of faith in the entire Bible.  It reminds me of Martin Luther’s statement at the Diet of Worms in 1521, “I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  May God help me.”  The big difference is that Martin Luther needed a night to come to this conclusion and bold statement.  This was not afforded to the three Hebrews and they make their confession without giving it another thought.

If the king was expecting a submissive response from his “reasonable” explanation of the state of affairs to these young Hebrews, he was in for a rude shock.  They refused to budge.

They could have given in at this point.  They might have reasoned about how much the Jewish people (and God) needed them to keep their government posts.  How could they act as buffers for Israel if they burnt to a crisp (cf. Calvin)?  Also, the king was giving them a second chance.  Wouldn’t they seem ungrateful not to respond to his kindness with compliance?

These three young men, influenced by the godly character of Daniel, who in chapter 1 dared to be holy, stood before the furious king and the fury of the fire and answered the king with one of the most beautiful expressions of Biblical faith ever heard.  Let me just read it again.

“O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter.  If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king.  But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.” (Daniel 3:16b-18)

Nobody talks to the king like that!  Understandably Nebuchadnezzar was floored and even more furious.  His authority was being challenged.  His influence was being diminished right before his eyes.  His honor was shattered.  Were they in for it!

But notice what they had said.

“We have no need to answer you in this matter” indicates that they were not about to change their stance nor did they have anything to say by way of denial.  Nothing could dissuade them.  To them, the issue was settled, no matter how “guilty” it made them.  No matter how many chances the king gave them to change their minds, they were determined not to compromise.

The boldness and ease with which Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego respond to Nebuchadnezzar reflects their predetermined resolve to obey God.  They had an ongoing relationship with God, wherein they were consistently determined to serve Him alone (v. 17).

Because they lived according to biblical principles, they had no need to deliberate the matter, as would have been necessary if they had practiced situational ethics, as is popular among believers today.  They had no need to ask themselves, “What do I do in this situation?”  Like Daniel, they had already made up their minds beforehand, they had resolved in their hearts that they would not bow down to any idols but worship Yahweh alone.

“This matter,” however, which requires no answer, is not the indictment but the offer of a reprieve on condition of compliance.  The response from these faithful men is that compliance is out of the question.

Their boldness originated in their confidence before God: they were convinced their situation was sure to gain God’s attention (Prov. 28:1).  Their ready answer must have been prompted by the Spirit of God (Matt. 10:19-20; Mark 13:11; Luke 12:11-12; 21:12-15; Acts 4:13).  They knew that “man’s extremity is God’s opportunity.”  They were neither anxious, nor afraid.  Therefore, they could take a bold stand, even with their lives in jeopardy.

Although there is “no need” to respond, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego do, in fact, give two further statements to explain their position.  They hold two theological realities in tension in their lives.  First, that God is indeed powerful enough to deliver them.  Second, that God is sovereign and it is His prerogative whether or not He actually decides to deliver them.

The 1992 hit movie Indecent Proposal may have caused many Americans to more closely examine their moral ethics than any church sermon in the last few years.  The movie proposed a moral dilemma: Would you, or would you permit your mate to, have sex with someone else—for the right price?  In the movie, $1 million did the trick.

What if we upped the ante to $10 million in real life?  According to the book The Day America Told the Truth, Americans are ready to trade some dear things for that kind of money.  Twenty-five percent said they would abandon their families, 25 percent would abandon their church, 23 percent would become prostitutes for a week, and 7 percent would kill a stranger.  Alarmingly, the figures remained consistent even when the potential payoff was reduced to five, then four, and finally three million.  All of us must ask ourselves what we would do in a situation when we have something to gain by violating our conscience, or stand to lose something very precious to us, even our very lives.

If we are like most Christians, we compromise more than we want to admit.  Again, according to George Gallup, even though 94 percent of us believe in God and 84 percent believe that Jesus is God’s Son, fewer than ten percent of us can be called committed Christians.

Bob Slocum, businessman and author of Maximize Your Ministry, discovered why this may be true.  After teaching a Sunday morning class that addressed the issues of ethics and right and wrong, a bright young businessman approached Slocum with the following observations:

He thought that in talking about good and evil I was three levels above where most people are living.  He said that when people must make a business or personal decision, the first question they ask is, “Do I or don’t I want to do it”—not “Is it good or evil?”  If they get to the next level, they ask whether it is legal or illegal.  At the third level, they may ask whether it is right or wrong as judged by friends and peers.  Only at the fourth and highest level would the question arise of good or evil as judged by God.  And the young man didn’t think most people ever get to that level (Robert Slocum, Maximize Your Ministry, pp. 21-22).

Let’s just admit it, most of us are prone to cave in or compromise rather than pay the price for doing what is right.  But the problem we tend to forget is that there is a price for compromise as well.  In fact, most often that price is steeper.

What’s that old saying?  “Sin will take you farther than you want to go, keep you longer than you want to stay, and cost you more than you want to pay.”

Now well established in their careers as Babylonian officials, Daniel’s three friends, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who at the time were in their mid-life, were offered a simple alternative: bow or burn.  Caught in the web of global politics, they were being called to choose between their commitment to God and their allegiance to Nebuchadnezzar.

At the sound of the music everyone was supposed to bow before the 90 foot statue Nebuchadnezzar had built to exalt himself and to solidify allegiance among the disparate peoples he had conquered.  A roaring furnace added to the noise, reminding everyone of the extreme price to be paid for disobedience.

For a moment, the whole world was united in bowing to Nebuchadnezzar’s statue.  The curse of Babel had, it seemed, successfully been reversed.

So people all around went down to their knees, and then this sea of humanity fell like a wave on their faces before the image and the throne.  But in the middle of this sea of bowing humanity, three figures stood firmly, quietly, not bending a knee!  In fact, it is quite possible that they turned their backs on this abominable idol.  Their names were Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.  These young men did not compromise, and for all practical purposes, it looked like they were to pay for that stand with their lives.  We can applaud them for their uncompromising position, but what about you and me?  What will we do?

Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego must have felt very alone as they looked about and saw everyone else obeying orders.  Where were their fellow countrymen?  Where was Daniel when they needed him?

These young men, instead, show contempt for the image (Dan. 3:8-12) by refusing to bow.  Other cultures and religious beliefs could accommodate pluralistic worship, but the Jews could not.  They worshipped God alone.  So they did not bow down, and some of the jealous officials, peeking during worship, came and tattled on them.  Some had noticed that they had not bowed down.

These three Hebrew children remembered and held in reverent fear that God had said:

You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God. (Exodus 20:4, 5)

They probably also remembered when the newly redeemed Israelites created an image of a golden calf and danced around it (Exodus 32:4).  They remembered how their God hated that and exercised swift and sure judgment.

Theologian John Calvin writes, “A true image of God is not to be found in all the world; and hence…His glory is defiled, and His truth corrupted by the lie, whenever He is set before our eyes in a visible form….Therefore, to devise any image of God, is in itself impious, because by this corruption His majesty is adulterated, and He is figured to be other than He is” (Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, p. 108).

Standing with the heat of a blazing fire in their face, I can see how they would have been tempted to rationalize and convince themselves that it would be all right to bow down just this once, ignoring the command of the Sovereign Lord.  Some might make a case for situation ethics.  In this situation it would be all right to bow down because they would get killed if they did not.  Certainly God would not want these three young men to die, would he?

But this is exactly what this world is crying for: men and women, boys and girls, who have conviction of heart and do not change their convictions on the basis of their circumstances.

Others would argue in terms of culture. “The Babylonians are not going to understand the laws of our God.  We don’t want to offend our culture and ruin our witness, do we?  We will bow now so they will listen to us later.  Anyway, nobody that we know will see us.”

Still others would argue on assumption of forgiveness.  “We have a loving God who is slow to anger and quick to forgive.  We will bow just this one time and then ask forgiveness. God is more understanding and forgiving than these Babylonians.  It’s His job to forgive.”  Now, it is true that God does forgive the sins of his people.  Jesus died to pay the penalty for all of our sins.  However, we misunderstand the grace of God when we base our disobedience on his gracious forgiveness.  That is absurd!  The apostle John tells us that he gives the opportunity to confess and be forgiven our sins, but not as an excuse to go ahead and sin (1 John 1:5-2:1).  Sinning so that grace may abound reveals a deeper problem of the heart.  Hebrews 12:15 says, “See to it that no one misses the grace of God.”

Some would prefer a silent protest.  “We will kneel on the outside, but we will be standing and worshiping the true God on the inside, in our hearts.  Surely God will understand.”

The uncompromising nature of the king’s decree provided incentive for some to accuse “the Jews”—Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.  “Certain” Chaldeans went to the king and “maliciously” made charges against Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego.

The three Hebrews could have come up with many excuses to justify their disobedience to the Law of God.  We often do.  We compromise under pressure even though the pressure we face is nothing compared to that of facing death if we obey.  But the three friends of Daniel considered the first two commandments and decided to defy the king’s order.

[And remember, there are more than two commandments!]  Biblical faith obeys God’s laws.

I love what Charles Spurgeon says about these three young men: “Their actions were not public but neither were they hidden.  These three Hebrew men must have known they would be discovered, yet they obeyed God rather than man. “You will not be able to go through life without being discovered: a lighted candle cannot be hid.  There is a feeling among some good people that it will be wise to be very reticent, and hide their light under a bushel.  They intend to lie low all the wartime, and come out when the palms are being distributed.  They hope to travel to heaven by the back lanes, and skulk into glory in disguise.  Ah me, what a degenerate set!”

These Chaldeans couldn’t wait to tattle to the king.  Remember, these “Chaldeans” had been losing out to Daniel and his friends ever since they had arrived in Babylon (cf. Dan. 1:20; 2:49) so they had plenty of incentive to spy upon these men and tell the king of their infraction.  Seeing their chance, they report it.

They were obviously motivated by jealousy and envy.  These sins feed off inequality—the fact that someone else has something I don’t have—popularity, power, friends, influence, possessions.  Success breeds envy like nothing else does, and along with it: rivalry, competition, covetousness, territorialism, and resentment.  Proverbs 27:4 indicates that jealousy can be more powerful and dangerous than even anger and fury!

Jealousy involves the fear of losing something or someone to a rival; envy is the feeling of resentment towards someone for something they possess that you lack.  “In envy you recognize people who are better off and you burn with bitterness.  John Gielgud, the great British actor, in his autobiography, said, ‘When Sir Laurence Olivier played Hamlet in 1948 and the critics raved, I wept.’” (Timothy and Kathy Keller, God’s Wisdom for Navigating Life, p. 127).  You can see both jealousy and envy in the “certain Chaldeans” who came forward and “maliciously accused” the three friends.

Jealousy and envy can destroy a relationship, a ministry, a church.  When others possess something we don’t have, or might take away from something we have, we get anxious and react, often by “tattling” to someone in authority.

Jealousy in ministry is dangerous not only because it is sin, but because it is sin that so quickly hides itself.  It takes refuge in places like “correct theology” and “the right methods” and pretends to be anything other than what it really is.  It did with the Pharisees, who were jealous of Jesus’ popularity.

Instead of being filled with gratitude to God for his kindness, we become so many Sauls, stewing resentfully as we hear the crowds singing, “Saul has tweeted to thousands, but David to ten thousands.”

Sarah Nixon, involved in student ministry, shares these diagnostic questions to see if we are fighting jealousy with self-righteousness:

1. Is my first thought or comment about this ministry or person a critique?
2. Do I feel the need to distinguish myself from “them,” to specifically note differences in our theology or methodology?
3. Am I “leaking” comments to my peers or students that slander or malign this ministry or person?
4. Do I seek out negative information or opinions, or ask for “more” information under the guise of confirming my bias?
5. If given the chance, would I want their ministry or impact to suffer?
6. Am I willing for the Lord to “set me aside” and use someone else? What if it is, indeed, this particular ministry?
7. If this student comes to know Jesus more through this ministry, would I rejoice?
8. Is my response to the last question, “but that’s not possible! No student could come to know Jesus more through another ministry!”?

John the Baptist could have been jealous and envious at his cousin Jesus’ ministry.  But fortunately he models for us how we ought to respond to someone else’s ministry being blessed.

First, he remembers where all blessing, success, and opportunity comes from.  “A person cannot receive even one thing unless it is given him from heaven.”  We kill envy when we remember that whether we succeed or whether someone else does is ultimately given from the God who reigns in heaven.  And how dare we assault his wisdom by murmuring about the opportunities and success of others.

Second, John remembers his role.  He is the friend of the Bridegroom, the groomsman, not the Bridegroom himself.  And the groomsmen rejoice greatly when they hear the voice of the Groom.  Now most of us aren’t jockeying to replace the Bridegroom.  We don’t want to be Jesus.  But we sometimes act like we’re in a competition to be the best man.  Which is why it’s so important to labor to rejoice greatly when we hear the Bridegroom’s voice in the voices of our fellow groomsmen.

Finally, John’s joy is complete when the Bridegroom arrives and surpasses him.  Where Christ increases, John is content to decrease.  But are we?  Are we content to decrease, when Christ increases through the ministry of another?  Do we even acknowledge that Christ is increasing in the ministry of others?  Or do we attribute their success to some other factor: their ambition, their compromises, and in our worst moments, to the efforts of the devil?

So jealousy and envy are dangerous and destructive for ministry, for fellowship, even for our own spiritual life, and that is what we see expressed by the Chaldean officials in vv. 8-12.

8 Therefore at that time certain Chaldeans came forward and maliciously accused the Jews. 9 They declared to King Nebuchadnezzar, “O king, live forever!  10 You, O king, have made a decree, that every man who hears the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, shall fall down and worship the golden image.  11 And whoever does not fall down and worship shall be cast into a burning fiery furnace.  12 There are certain Jews whom you have appointed over the affairs of the province of Babylon: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.  These men, O king, pay no attention to you; they do not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.”

These men begin with flattery, “O king, live forever!”  Their plan was to draw the king into their rhetoric and guide him to the conclusion they hoped for, and so they reminded him of his decree: everyone who heard the instruments was to worship the image.  They reiterated (v. 10-11) the warning of death for dissenters (cf. v. 6).

Their climax was to remind the king of how illegitimately these men had arrived at their exalted positions.  You can almost hear the sneer in their voices. “There are certain Jews whom you have appointed over the affairs of the province of Babylon: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.”  However, notice that they didn’t even voice their names, merely calling them “the Jews” and “certain Jews whom you have appointed.”  You can feel the antisemitism in their words.  You can see the disdain dripping from their lips.  After all, these defeated peoples should be servants, not leaders (v. 12)!

Those who refused to worship could have been described as certain individuals, or certain leaders, or even certain men.  But it was their identity as Jews their accusers emphasized when describing their behavior.

That hated, belittled Jewish race who had no place in your exalted kingdom O King, these men “pay no attention to you” emphasizing that they had ignored his command to bow to the image, “they do not serve your gods” emphasizing that they were outsiders and they do not “worship the golden image that you have set up” which shows their defiance to the king himself.

The words “maliciously accused has the idea of “eating to pieces.”  As their own insides were being gobbled up by jealousy and envy, so now their tongues tear apart these three Jewish friends.  John Phillips says, like most rumor mongers, “they enjoyed every word of it.  They went all around the issue, savoring every statement and making it last as long as they could.  They were prodding the king, provoking him, preparing him for the news that some people would not bow” (Exploring the Book of Daniel, p. 64).

They made three accusations against the Hebrews:

1. They were disloyal to Nebuchadnezzar.
2. They didn’t serve the Babylonian gods.
3. They didn’t worship the image.

“As usual, jealousy resulted in a slippery grip on reality, causing the astrologers to think the worst of the three men.  Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego certainly didn’t worship the image or serve the Babylonian deities, but they were never disloyal to Nebuchadnezzar—until he tried to pull rank on God and commanded them to worship the image” (William Peel, Living in the Lions Den without Being Eaten, p. 84).

Daniel 3 is one of the more memorable stories in the book of Daniel.  Again, I use the word “stories” not because these are myths or fables, but rather because they are real-life events in narrative literature that have all the qualifies of a good story.  It has compelling characters, a strong plot, conflict and tension and universality and relevance (in other words, we can relate to it).

Now in their 40s, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were well established in their careers as Babylonian officials.  Now they were offered a simple alternative: bow or burn.  Caught in the web of global politics, they were called to choose between their commitment to God and their allegiance to Nebuchadnezzar.  With no other options—short of compromising their faith—they chose to be faithful to God and suffer the consequences.

Who hasn’t heard the story of Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-Nego, the three brave Hebrew youths who refused to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar’s idol and were thrown into the fiery furnace?

After dreaming about an image (2:31-45), Nebuchadnezzar constructs an image and commands everyone to worship it (3:1-5).  Defiance would mean swift destruction in a fiery furnace (v. 6).  Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to worship the image (vv. 8-12) and declared their confidence in God (vv. 13-18).  When the king has them thrown into the fiery furnace, but their God delivers them (vv. 19-27).  Nebuchadnezzar acknowledges this divine deliverance and warns that anyone who speaks against the God of these Jewish men will be destroyed (vv. 28-29).  Having escaped fiery death, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are promoted once again (v. 30).

This chapter raises a number of important questions:

• When Nebuchadnezzar issues a decree contradicting God’s law regarding the worship of idols (Ex. 20:4-5; Lev. 26:1), how are the Jews to respond?
• What risks must the Jews be willing to face to remain faithful to God?
• Will God always intervene to rescue His people from their plight, as He does in this chapter for Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego?

Structure

Like many chapters in Daniel, this chapter is structured as a chiasm.

Divine Deliverance from Death (3:1-30)

1. The Herald Proclaims a Royal Decree (3:1-7)
2. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego Are Accused (3:8-12)
3. Nebuchadnezzar Is Enraged and Gives Orders (3:13-15)
4. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego Declare Resolve (3:16-18)

3′. Nebuchadnezzar Is Enraged and Gives Orders (3:19-23)

2′. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego Are Delivered (3:24-27)

1′. Nebuchadnezzar Proclaims a Royal Decree (3:28-30)

Daniel 3 is framed by different commands (1 and 1′).  In the first, the king’s herald announces the obligation to worship the image, and in the second the king decrees that anyone who speaks against God will be destroyed.  This is a divine reversal.

The main drama of the story occurs in verses 8-27, where Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are accused of defying the king (2) but are delivered from the fiery furnace without harm 2′).

In the penultimate sections of the chiasm (3 and 3′), Nebuchadnezzar gives commands.  When he hears that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refuse to worship the golden image, he commands that they be brought to him and he questions their allegiance (3).  Part of this section includes the warning about death in the fiery furnace.  Then, in 3′, Nebuchadnezzar orders the furnace to be made hotter than usual and the three young men to be cast in.

Central to the story of chapter 3 is the resolve of three young men.  Like Daniel in chapter 1, they knew that there was a line that they could not cross and they had already decided not to bow down to a graven image.  In verses 16-18 they declare their trust in God to deliver them but also their intent to be faithful to him no matter what the cost, even if he chooses not to spare them from death.

Date

The setting up of Nebuchadnezzar’s giant golden graven image on the plains of Dura did not happen right on the heels of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in chapter 2.  Rather, some 23 years had passed, time enough for the king to have amassed several more military victories.  He was indeed that “head of gold” and now his success seems to have gone to his head!  Had he desired, he likely could have gone on to conquer a greater part of the known world.  The potential was present, but pride threw up an obstacle.

Back in Jerusalem, the wicked king Jehoiakim had died.  Perhaps Nebuchadnezzar had heard about this vassal king, sitting on his puppet throne, being given “the burial of an ass.”  The kings of Judah came and went at Nebuchadnezzar’s whim.  By this time Nebuchadnezzar had taken another group of captives in 597 B.C., among whom was Ezekiel.  A third invasion of Judah resulted not only in the final fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple but also the monarchy itself.  Egypt had been conquered and a 13-year siege of Tyre had finally been won.  And all of this went to Nebuchadnezzar’s head.

Since ancient cultures considered their fortune in war as an indication of power of their patron deities, it may be that Nebuchadnezzar’s amazement of the Jewish God, as recorded in chapter 2, had eroded in the subsequent events leading to Babylon’s final destruction of Jerusalem. Having destroyed God’s house (the temple) and burned the city, Nebuchadnezzar may have interpreted his overthrow of Jerusalem as an indication of the weakness of Israel’s God. (https://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/Book_of_Daniel/commentary/htm/chapters/03.html#3.3)

Daniel’s Friends Would Not Bow (Daniel 3:1-12)

Verse 1 records for us: “King Nebuchadnezzar made an image of gold, whose height was sixty cubits and its breadth six cubits. He set it up on the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon.”

The plain of Dura is just southeast of Babylon, constructed near the city so the largest number of people possible could see the magnificent golden image and participate in public worship of the king.  Professor George Rawlinson noted in an article in Smith’s Bible Dictionary that an archaeological explorer named M. Oppert discovered remains of an enormous “pedestal of a colossal statue” in the plain of Dura.

Ninety feet high and nine feet wide.  It is likely that Nebuchadnezzar had seen the pyramids, the sphinxes, the colossal temples and the giant statue of Rameses the Great when he conquered Egypt.  The sheer size of these monuments left an indelible image on Nebuchadnezzar’s imagination and the great size of this statue matched Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, which was of a “mighty” image (2:31). 

“Before I die, I must have a gigantic monument built for me to impress future generations of my greatness, wealth and power.”

Here in the U. S. we now have a 90-foot statue of an Indian god.  After housing the temple with the tallest gopuram (87-feet) in North Carolina and the world’s second largest Hindu temple in New Jersey, America unveiled the tallest standing statue of Lord Hanuman on 18 August following a three-day prana pratishtha ceremony in the south coast. Remarkably, the 90-feet tall Hanuman sculpture is the third tallest statue in the United States, next to the Statue of Liberty in New York, and the Pegasus & Dragon in Florida.

And, of course, while Egypt’s monuments were made of bricks Nile mud and chopped straw, but Nebuchadnezzar would construct his out of gold!  After all, he had amassed plenty of gold from the peoples that he had conquered over the last 20+ years, likely most of it from Egypt.

Some wonder whether it was solid gold, or just plated with gold.  Amir Tsirfati, in his book Discovering Daniel, calculates that a statue of this size had a volume of 7,290 feet.  A cubic foot of gold weighs 1,188.6 pounds.  That would be a total weight of 8,664,894 pounds!  And because you are dying to know, based on the current price of gold at $3,344.70 [6.10.25] per ounce.  That’s nearly 464 trillion dollars!

That’s a lot of money, even for the king of Babylon!  I opt for it being plated with gold, which would still be very expensive and very gaudy.  “Jewish tradition holds that the Babylonian king used gold from the treasures taken from Solmon’s Temple to cover the surface of the man-shaped statue” (Grant R. Jeffrey, Countdown to the Apocalypse, p. 66).

Another thing to notice is that although only the head of gold in chapter 2 represented Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon, here he makes the whole image of gold.  Was this expressive of a desire to live forever, or to have his legacy never forgotten?

No silver, bronze, iron, or iron/clay were included in his statue.  From head to toe, the golden statue symbolized the king’s hubris and defiance of what the God of heaven had revealed to Daniel.  It is as if the king thought he could stop the vision from coming true.   This was an apparent attempt to try to counteract the dream.  It was a definite statement asserting that there would be no end or “after this” with respect to his kingdom, but rather that his glory would continue forever (E. A. Lucas, Daniel, p. 93).

“Nebuchadnezzar was a flawed man.  Chief among those faults was pride, as we’ll see even more clearly in the next chapter.  Whether this image was of the king of a god, or simply a giant obelisk, it was still a tangible representation of Nebuchadnezzar’s power and majesty” (Amir Tsarfati, Discovering Daniel, p. 62).  “This not only indicates the superficial nature of his earlier confession of Yahweh as ‘God of gods and Lord of kings’ (2:47), but it also suggests an egotism tending toward megalomania” (Gleason Archer, Jr., “Daniel” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p. 50).

So Nebuchadnezzar would make an image and it would be the focal point of worship , something he believed would unite the empire.  “In ancient times it was common for kings who conquered nations that held diverse beliefs and religious practices to attempt to create political and religious unity by imposing a new national religion.  Such religion usually was based on worship of the emperor as a god” (Grant R. Jeffrey, Countdown to the Apocalypse, p. 67)

 It also seems to be Nebuchadnezzar’s declaration of independence from God.  Unlike the golden head in the image in chapter 2 which was superseded by the arms and chest of silver, Nebuchadnezzar believed himself to be undefeated and deserving an eternal kingdom.  James Montgomery Boice writes: “In this way he defied God and said in effect, ‘I will not allow the God of Deaniel to set my kingdom aside.  My rule will endure’” (Daniel: An Expositional Commentary, p. 42).

“Though young men usually feel invincible and immortal, Nebuchadnezzar had more reasons than most to do so.  He was, without dispute, the most powerful monarch the world has ever known.  No one else, before or since, has ruled over more people and property with such absolute power as Nebuchadnezzar….To a man like Nebuchadnezzar, there was certainly no way some Hebrew god was going to call the shots.  Dream or no dream, Nebuchadnezzar was the master of his fate.  After all, he had defeated God’s people three times—twice since the dream, and on Hebrew turf as well” (Willim Peel, Living in the Lions’ Den Without Being Eaten pp. 82-83).

What did this image represent?

If, as we suppose, the image is Nebuchadnezzar’s response to the revelation provided by Daniel’s interpretation of the dream in the previous chapter, it would be natural for the image to resemble that of chapter 2: the form of a man.  “According to a number of patristic authors, the image represented a deification of Nebuchadnezzar himself.” (Stephen R. Miller, “Daniel,” in E. Ray Clendenen, Kenneth A. Mathews, and David S. Dockery, eds., The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994), Dan. 3:1)

David Jeremiah comments: “It is no coincidence that the designers of this bizarre statue made it sixty cubits high and six cubits wide.  In Revelation 13:19, the number of the beast of the Antichrist was the number of man, 666  The Bible gives the number six to mankind; seven is the number of perfection.  We fall short; we never come up to the standard. 

The image is a good picture of mankind; it was made of wood overlaid with gold.  That’s the way our projects are outwardly [impressive], but inwardly inferior.  Man is always setting up his gigantic projects, but when you get down to the core of them, there’s not much there” (David Jeremiah, The Handwriting on the Wall, p. 73).

Others suggest that this was not a deification of Nebuchadnezzar, but rather an image of Nebuchadnezzar’s patron god, Nebo (or Nabu).  Prostration before Nebo would amount to a pledge of allegiance to his viceroy, Nebuchadnezzar. The dimensions are not that of a human, except maybe former NBA player Manute Bol.  It is extremely tall and skinny.  He was 7’7” and weighed only 201 pounds!

Leonardo da Vinci, an artistic genius, saw God’s artistry in the way He has designed the human body.  He called it the Vitruvian Man and it shows the mathematical proportions of the human body.

The drawing represents Leonardo’s conception of ideal body proportions, originally derived from Vitruvius but influenced by his own measurements, the drawings of his contemporaries, and the De pictura treatise by Leon Battista Alberti.  Nebuchadnezzar’s image was nothing like this.

Some posit that it is a human placed upon a pedestal so that the dimensions would be more human-like.  Some see in the dimensions a reference to the number 666 (Rev. 13:13) the number of man in all his glory.  This would reinforce that Nebuchadnezzar was merely a man, no match for God.

Heslop writes: “On the plains of Dura there stands today, a rectilinear mound, about twenty feet high, an exact square of about forty-six feet at the base, resembling the pedestal of a colossal statue.”

Others suggest that the image more exactly appears like the Asherah, the Hebrew tzelem, denoting something shaped by cutting or carving, more like a pole (Ezekiel 16:17; 23:14).  But even if this statue represented a god, no one was left in any doubt as to whose power lay behind its existence.  In contrast to Daniel’s confession that it was the God of heaven who set up kings and deposed them (2:21), the statue was Nebuchadnezzar’s defiant declaration that as king he could set up gods for his people to worship.

Regardless of what it may have symbolized, it was erected on a plain so that everyone could see it and worship it.  The plain of Dura was the same Babylonian plain upon which the Tower of Babel had been erected (Gen. 11:2).  In like manner, Nebuchadnezzar had erected this statue to communicate the dominance of his legacy, making a name for himself, and seeking that this image would unite the empire.

Throughout history egomaniacs have used religion to solidly their own praise and power.  In the late 1930s it was written:

“One cannot be a good German and at the same time deny God.  But an avowal of faith in the eternal Germany is an avowal of faith in the eternal God.  Whoever serves Adolf Hitler the Fuhrer serves Germany, and whoever serves Germany serves God.”

Later on, in 1942, this was written:

“There is a lot of talk in Germany about Hitler’s Messianic characteristics.  The thesis that Hitler is a miraculous being sent by a Supreme Power, and that he is capable of mystic communion with the German masses is gaining greater currency.  Consequently, the attack on Christian religion becomes more severe.  In Germany, no attempt is made to stamp out the faith in the supernatural.  The policy is more blasphemous.  It is to replace Christ.  Religion is now counterfeited than dismissed.  This extraordinary tendency is perhaps without parallel during the last two thousand years.  The Nazis are trying to create an anti-type of Christianity.  They have made their leader God.”

[These last two quotes are unattributed, but found in David Jeremiah’s Handwriting on the Wall, p. 74).

Iain Duguid, in his commentary on Daniel, illustrates further examples of how dictators today want to be worshiped, from Mao to Lenin to Saddam Hussein, then he applies it to our lives today:

“When put in these terms, it becomes evident that our culture places the same pressure on each one of us to put our Godi second place, albeit in more subtle ways.  We too find ourselves constantly pressed to keep our beliefs private, and therefore secondary.  We are told that the public sphere must be kept untainted by any religion, for any other opinion threatens the unifying dogma of the separation of church and state.  We can believe whatever we want, by all means.  However, we are strongly discouraged from talking about it or trying to influence the beliefs of others” (Iain Duguid, Daniel in The Reformed Expository Commentary, p. 48).

Of course, this is exactly what the Antichrist will do during the tribulation, to try to win the allegiance of the whole world, including Jews.

The LXX renders צְלֵם [ṣ^elēm] as εἰκόνα [eikona], the same word used in the Greek NT for the image of the beast from the sea, the Antichrist, which all the world is forced to worship at the time of the end (Rev. 13:14-17).  So this image foreshadows that equally idolatrous event.

The beast whose image is referred to is the same Antichrist.  A statue of him is made animated and empowered by the second beast, the false prophet.  The world’s population will then be forced to worship the man behind the image.  The penalty will be the same as in this chapter in Daniel: death.

Man’s desire to be worshiped is as old as Adam.  Nebuchadnezzar’s ceremony illustrates the well-worn path of totalitarian leaders who prostitute religion in the service of egotistical personal or political aspirations.  He is one of many in the line extending from Nimrod (Gen. 10:8-9) to Antichrist (Rev. 13:15).  And is represented in recent years by images of Saddam Hussein, portraits of Kim Il-Sung, King Jong-Il, Kin Jong-Un and Kim Jong-Suk.  This dictatorial self-exaltation is not surprising.  After all, pride is the sin that caused the fall of the great enemy himself (1 Tim. 3:6) and illustrated in the fall of the kings of Babylon (Isaiah 14:12-14) and Tyre (Ezekiel 28:13-14).  Whether these passages refer implicitly to Satan or to Adam, they still reflect the inclination of the Evil One to desire all worship and to encourage us to worship ourselves.

Robert Bellah, in his 1996 book Habits of the Heart, describes an interview with a young lady named Sheila Larson, who described her own faith as “Sheilaism.”  In defining what she calls ‘my own Sheilaism,’ she said: ‘It’s just try to love yourself and be gentle with yourself.  You know, I guess, take care of each other.  I think God would want us to take care of each other.’”

Today, so many people believe that their own desires are sovereign, so that it defines who they are, but this is just another expression of idolatry—holding the self up to be worshiped as in control of our lives, our identity and our destiny.

Why did Nebuchadnezzar have this statue built?  Was it because of his dream and his desire that his dynasty would last forever?  Or was it motivated by the wise men of Babylon who were trying to trap the faithful Hebrew young men into a compromising position or die for their beliefs?

Throughout history rulers have mixed politics with religion to try to strengthen their grip over their citizens.  An example of this was displayed in 1936 when Herr Baldur von Schirach, head of the youth program for Nazi Germany, said: “If we act as true Germans we act according to the laws of God.  Whoever serves Adolf Hitler, the führer, serves Germany, and whoever serves Germany serves God.”

This is the spirit of Babylon, self-worship, self-actualization and expressive individualism.  It has crept into our society and churches here in the U. S. as well.  Let us humble ourselves before the Most High God.

Daniel has recounted and interpreted Nebuchadnezzar’s troubling dream, successfully in the eyes of Nebuchadnezzar.  As happens with the interaction between Nebuchadnezzar and the Hebrew children in chapters 1, 2, and 3 and in chapter 5 with Belshazzar, they are rewarded for providing the wisdom and direction they needed in these situations.

Daniel’s public triumph is seen in vv. 46-49.

Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face and paid homage to Daniel, and commanded that an offering and incense be offered up to him.  The king answered and said to Daniel, “Truly, your God is God of gods and Lord of kings, and a revealer of mysteries, for you have been able to reveal this mystery.”  Then the king gave Daniel high honors and many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon and chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon.  Daniel made a request of the king, and he appointed Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego over the affairs of the province of Babylon.  But Daniel remained at the king’s court.

Nebuchadnezzar was so emotionally overcome by Daniel’s definitive recall, description and interpretation of the meaning of his dream and the monstrous image that appeared.  First he “fell upon his face”—perhaps because he was grateful or overwhelmed or fearful— and then impulsively “paid homage to Daniel, and commanded that an offering and incense be offered up to him” (v.  46).  

John Calvin remarks: “Nebuchadnezzar was really a very powerful monarch, and it was difficult for him so to regulate his mind as to attribute the glory to God.  Thus the dream which Daniel explained could not be pleasing to him.  He saw his monarchy cursed before God, and about to perish in ignominy others, too, which should succeed it were ordained in heaven; and though he might receive some comfort from the destruction of the other kingdoms, yet it was very harsh to delicate ears, to hear that a kingdom, which appeared most flourishing, and which all men thought would be perpetual, was of but short duration and sure to perish.”  So to prostrate himself before Daniel IS a sign of humility.

Clearly, Daniel had done what everyone considered humanly impossible.  He had told the king the dream that Nebuchadnezzar alone knew (and stubbornly wouldn’t tell anyone) or had perhaps even forgotten, and Daniel had given an interpretation of the dream that made sense to the king.  Consequently, Nebuchadnezzar concluded that Daniel must be some sort of god, and he proceeded to treat him as one by bowing before him, presenting an offering to him, and burning incense to him (cf. Acts 10:25; 14:13).

Nebuchadnezzar was not yet personally bowing his knee to this God of the Jews.  Notice that he still says that this is Daniel’s God (“your God is God of gods and Lord of kings”), to which Calvin admits he’s “not quite in his senses.”  Nevertheless, his respect for Daniel’s god was growing. 

Immersed and raised within a polytheistic culture, Nebuchadnezzar may simply be stating that Daniel’s God is the greatest among the pantheon of Babylonian deities.

By “God of gods” he may be beginning to doubt the existence or power of his own familiar gods and by “Lord of lords” “he claims for him the supreme dominion over the world; he means to assert that Israel’s God not only excels all others, but holds the reins of government over the world” (John Calvin)

In falling down before Daniel (and his God) in deference, king Nebuchadnezzar demonstrated the truth of this statement, “May all kings bow down to him and all nations serve him” (Psalm 72:11); “By me kings reign and rulers issue decrees that are just; by me princes govern, and nobles—all who rule on earth” (Prov. 8:15-16); Jesus will be “the ruler of the kings of the earth” (Revelation 1:5).  In the final war against the Lamb, he will overcome them because “He is Lord of lords and King of kings” (Rev. 17:14).  This is written even on His thigh (Rev. 19:16).

He adds, he is a revealer of secrets.  This is our proof of Divinity, as we have said elsewhere.  For Isaiah, when wishing to prove the existence of only one, true God, takes these two principles, viz., Nothing happens without his permission; and his foreseeing all things. (Daniel 48:3-5.)  These two principles have been inseparably unified (John Calvin)

At this point we might say Nebuchadnezzar was a henotheist, placing the Most High at the “head of the line.”  As Gleason Archer Jr. says, “The king’s praise to the Lord does not necessarily mean that he doubted the existence of other gods, much less that he had experienced any sort of conversion” (Daniel in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p. 49).

The instance is instructive, as showing to what extent a mind clearly not under the influence of any genuine piety – for subsequent events showed that no “permanent” effects were produced on him, and that he was still an idolater Dan. 3, and a most proud and haughty man Dan. 4.

John Calvin concurs, “Let us learn from this passage, how insufficient it is to celebrate God’s wisdom and power with noisy declamation, unless we at the same time reject all superstitions from our minds, and so cling to the only God as to bid all others heartily farewell. No fuller verbal confession can be required than is here set before us; and yet we observe how Nebuchadnezzar was always involved in Satan’s impostures, because he wished to retain his false gods, and thought it sufficient to yield the first place to the God of Israel.”  God deserves not first place, but sole place.

This great king was obviously impressed.  He just wasn’t in the habit of showing such respect to anyone, especially to a foreign slave he had almost executed with the rest of the wise men.  This serves to confirm that had Daniel accurately reported the dream and had skillfully explained its meaning to the king.

First, the king praises Daniel (2:46-47).  He is astounded at Daniel’s ability to interpret his dream and orders that he would be honored as if he were a god.

While “King Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face and paid homage to Daniel, and commanded that an offering and incense be offered up to him” he seems to be doing this in recognition that Daniel’s God was unquestionably, incontestably superior to his gods, for He was “God of gods and Lord of lords.” (By the way, this prefigures what kings and presidents and premiers will do when Jesus Christ appears: fall down and worship, the King of kings and Lord of lords.)

In Philippians 2:9-11, Paul concludes:

9 Therefore [since Jesus humbled himself to serve and die for us] God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Nebuchadnezzar falling prostrate before Daniel prefigures Gentiles bowing the knee before Jesus and the eventual submission of Gentile governments to Israel in the Millennial Kingdom (Jer. 3:17; Zech. 14:16).

Josephus records a similar instance in which Alexander the Great bowed before the high priest of the Jews.  One of his generals asked him why he would lower himself to bow before a mere Jewish priest when even other kings would prostrate themselves before Alexander the Great.  The world conqueror replied, “It was not before him that I prostrated myself, but the God of whom he has the honor to be high priest.”

We see this in v. 47 where he also acknowledges, as Daniel desired, about Daniel’s God, “your God is God of gods and Lord of lords” and it was Daniel’s God who is “a revealer of mysteries.”  This is because at every stage Daniel had turned the spotlight from himself and cast it upon his God.  He was not, by receiving these honors, claiming the glory for himself.  By this statement we know that Nebuchadnezzar understood that Daniel was the ambassador and representative of God but not deity himself.

“In the process of offering worship to Daniel’s God, Nebuchadnezzar actually pays a great tribute to the God of Daniel.  It is most significant that he does not even mention his own gods which had failed to produce a suitable revelation, except in the statement that Daniel’s God is “a God of gods,” that is, Daniel’s God is supreme over any other gods commonly worshiped in a polytheistic system.  Although Nebuchadnezzar was short of true faith in Daniel’s God at this point in his life, the evidence that Daniel’s God could reveal a secret and may indeed have been the author of his dream impressed Nebuchadnezzar with the fact that no other god could be greater” (John Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation).

One can hardly doubt that Nebuchadnezzar was sincere in this proclamation, however, the next two chapters indicate for us that Nebuchadnezzar could hardly be called a committed follower of Yahweh yet. As Wiersbe says, “this was the first step.”

We should not miss the evangelistic influence of Daniel’s faithful walk in the events of this chapter.  Although Nebuchadnezzar has not yet come to full faith in Daniel’s God, Daniel’s trust and faith led to an unprecedented opportunity for Daniel to provide evidence of the power and authority of God later.

Second, the king promotes Daniel (2:48-49).  Since Daniel had so decisively proved himself a true prophet with access to the great God he worshiped, it was only logical that Nebuchadnezzar place him in charge of all the diviners at the court of Babylon.  He had proved his worth, while they had failed miserably and absolutely.

He gave Daniel “high honors” and “made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon and chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon.”  He opened the royal treasury and showered gifts upon him.  Why?  Because Daniel affirmed that Nebuchadnezzar was a great king and because he had interpreted the dream.

“As far as concerns gifts and the discharge of public duties, we can neither condemn Nebuchadnezzar for honoring God’s servant, nor yet Daniel for suffering himself to be thus exalted. All God’s servants ought to take care not to make a gain of their office, and we know how very pestilent the disease is when prophets and teachers are addicted to gain, or easily receive the gifts offered them. For where there is no contempt of money, many vices necessarily spring up, since all avaricious and covetous men adulterate God’s word and makes, traffic of it. (2 Corinthians 2:17.) Hence all prophets and ministers of God ought to watch against being covetous of gifts. But as far as Daniel is concerned, he might receive what the king offered him just as Joseph could lawfully undertake the government of the whole of Egypt. (Genesis 41:40)” (John Calvin)

“In times of adversity, believers usually have their greatest spiritual growth spurts and greatest spiritual moments, but most do not do nearly as well when they are enjoying times of prosperity (cf. Deut. 8:10-11).  Daniel, however, will live consistently well for the Lord during the years ahead of him even though he is prospering as few ever do” (Paul Benware, Daniel’s Prophecy of Things to Come).

Now, it is important for us to recognize here that “Daniel is not placed among these specific classes of diviners, but is “chief prefect” (רַב־סִגְנִין [rab–-siḡnîn]) over them (Dan. 2:48).  He is their supervisor, but he is never one of them.  Later too, Daniel is not among them, but separate from them.  He is not included among them in Daniel 4 and is brought to the king only when they cannot interpret Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Dan. 4:7-8).  Nor is Daniel among them in chapter 5.” (Steinman, Daniel, p. 110).

The appointment of Daniel over the wise men is undoubtedly connected with the arrival, hundreds of years later, of wise men seeking the king of the Jews.

There is no means of determining whether the μάγοι ἀπˊ ἀνατολῶν [magoi ap anatolōn] of Matt. 2:1, 7, 16 are specifically Babylonian astrologers or astrologers in general.  The former is more likely, since it is only in Babylon, by contact with the [Jewish] exiles, that the μἀγοι [magoi] would acquire an interest in the Jewish king (Messiah) (Gerhard Delling, “Magos,” in Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey William Bromily, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-c1976), 4:358)

Subsequent revelation given to Daniel concerning the Seventy Sevens (Dan. 9:24-27) would have allowed prediction of the time of the arrival of Messiah.  This knowledge may have been passed down among the Babylonian wise men until the arrival of the predicted time.

Earlier in the chapter, Daniel’s life was in danger (v. 13).  Now, he not only was spared from death and given gifts (cf. the promise of reward in 2:6) but also had ascended in rank under Nebuchadnezzar’s authority.  This was indeed noteworthy.  As Gleason Archer Jr. says, “Normally this position would be reserved for a Chaldean nobleman, a member, like Nebuchadnezzar, of the master race.  For a Jew from the Captivity to be so honored was unprecedented and shows how deeply his intelligence and integrity had impressed the king” (Daniel in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p. 50).  Daniel had clearly prospered under God’s favor.

It wasn’t all good, however, for being appointed “over all the wise men of Babylon” was sure to fire up latent jealousies and envy.  Some of these same men may have been the ones who brought him before Darius as a violator of the edict to pray to none other than Darius himself.

Nor did Daniel forget his friends.  He remembered how they had prayed with him for God’s revelation with him.  He was too wise to promote himself.  He did, however, bring their names before the king, and the king, on the basis of his trust in Daniel’s integrity and insight, did not hesitate to promote them as well.  He was loyal to his friends.  How they handled the special snares of advancement is told in the chapter that follows.

Like Daniel, his companions had once been under a royal decree of death (v. 13), but now not only have their lives been spared but they have ascended to a new rank.  Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego became overseers in the province, which probably implied managerial duties over the citizenry.  God’s vindicating hand was upon these faithful Israelites as they depended on him during their exile.

The first chapter ended with the king granting Daniel and his three friends a standing in his court (1:19, 21), and the second chapter ends with even greater positions (2:48-49).  This pattern of faithfulness resulting in blessing or promotion will be repeated in chapters 3, 5, and 6, showing us that it is God’s pattern to reward faithfulness to him, especially when we do not seek the glory for our success.  Where Lot was a compromiser, Daniel was inflexible for truth.

The cycle of Daniel’s life thus far (being taken to a foreign country, remaining faithful to Yahweh, becoming an adviser to a pagan ruler, interpreting a ruler’s dreams, being promoted within the kingdom) is reminiscent of Joseph’s.  As God did not abandon Joseph, he has not abandoned Daniel. Rather, God is with Daniel and his people in Babylonian captivity.  Further, the Egyptian captivity ended with an exodus when God later raised up a deliverer.  Daniel, a new Joseph, is in Babylonian captivity, and another exodus is perhaps in store.

Daniel himself remained in the palace and was available to Nebuchadnezzar as an adviser when the king needed him.  God prepared for the arrival of thousands of exiled Judahites (in 597 and 586 B.C.) by placing men in authority who were sympathetic to their needs (cf. Joseph).

John Walvoord concludes: “Thus Daniel, the obscure Jewish captive who could have been lost to history like many others if he had compromised in chapter 1, is now exalted to a place of great honor and power.  Like Joseph in Egypt, he was destined to play an important part in the subsequent history of his generation” (Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation, p. 78).  Thus Daniel was in a condition to be a helper to, and relieve much oppression over, his own people, just as Joseph did down in Egypt before him, as described Genesis 41:1-44.

Tom Constable ends this chapter with this chart, which he borrows from Arnold Fruchtenbaum.

Next week we will begin chapter 3, that wonderful story of the three brave Hebrew men who defied the king and trusted God to protect them.

Nebuchadnezzar has had a dream that troubled him.  As all leaders do, he had probably been thinking about the future.  What was next for his kingdom?  Would it last?  What would be his legacy?  God has given him a dream that, unknown to him at the moment, did have to do with his future.  The problem was, none of his psychic cabinet could either tell him what the dream was, nor could they interpret it.  They were, in fact, frauds, and Nebuchadnezzar conceived of a plan to prove it.

One man, however, could tell the king his dream AND interpret it, not because he was all-knowing and all-wise, but because he served the God who did know the future, because He had planned it all.  And know the Most High God is showing Nebuchadnezzar the plan for the “times of the Gentiles,” as Jesus called them (Luke 21:24).

So we pick up our study of the book of Daniel in chapter 2, verse 31.  In explaining the dream (2:31-35), Daniel began by recounting the substance of the dream (2:31-36).

“You saw, O king, and behold, a great image. This image, mighty and of exceeding brightness, stood before you, and its appearance was frightening.  The head of this image was of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its middle and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay.  As you looked, a stone was cut out by no human hand, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces.  Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in pieces, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found.  But the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.  “This was the dream.  Now we will tell the king its interpretation.

“To his astonishment, Nebuchadnezzar recognized the accuracy of every detail of Daniel’s description.  He must have been leaning forward to hear the explanation from what he now knew to be a spokesman from God” (Gleason Archer Jr., Daniel in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p. 45).

So, in his dream the king had seen a colossal image in human form.  It was terrible to behold because of its size and because of its glowing brightness, made almost entirely of gleaming metals.

Charles Feinberg says, “”The figure of a man was employed here because God wished to make known what would transpire during man’s day, the ages in which mortal man ruled the earth.  Here, in one panoramic sweep, the whole history of human civilization is spread before us, from the days of Nebuchadnezzar to the end of time” (Daniel: The Kingdom of the Lord, p. 35).

God shows to Nebuchadnezzar that he has a plan for those outside the nation of Israel, to use them as a means to draw His own people back to Himself.  God also shows Israel that He has not forgotten them, for the final kingdom (the kingdom of Jesus Christ) will have the final, and the eternal, victory.

God had two objectives in communicating this revelation of future kingdoms.  First, he wanted to clearly show that every earthly kingdom is temporary and that only His kingdom will stand eternally.  All of those who link their futures and livelihood to the world will be disappointed.  Just as Babylon the Great will fall in the end-times (Revelation 18), so will all kingdoms of the world.

1 John 2:15-17 – Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.

Second, God wanted to show His people Israel that there was hope for the future.  When Jesus returns and defeats the armies of the Antichrist, then He will establish a kingdom and sit on David’s throne in Jerusalem.  Israel will become the center of the earth and every nation will come to worship God there.

God had chosen Israel to be a light to the nations (Isaiah 49:6), yet God’s chosen nation had failed at its calling.  Now God will use the Babylonians and the succeeding empires to accomplish His purpose.

The head was fine gold, the breast and arms were of silver, the belly and thighs of brass, its legs were of iron, and its feet were a combination of iron and clay.  The king was contemplating this image in wonder and awe when suddenly he saw a huge stone, cut without hands, descend from the sky.  It smote the image and it toppled in broken pieces then blew away.  The stone became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.

Daniel had done what the professional psychics could not do.  And before the king could say anything, Daniel launched into the interpretation of that dream.

But before we get into that, let’s observe several facts about the image itself.

First, the vision was given to a Gentile king, the first of many such kings who would hold the Jews in bondage and Jerusalem under their feet.  With Nebuchadnezzar began the “times of the Gentiles” concerning God’s people in exile under the domination of various Gentile empires.

When we look over the range of biblical history and God’s purposes we find two significant time periods.

“When God raised up Abraham and promised him that through him and his seed all nations would be blessed (Gen. 12:1-3), He entrusted to him and his descendants two things: secular and spiritual supremacy over all people.  If Israel, as a nation, had been true to its calling, both goals would have been realized.  One day, in the sovereign purpose of God, both of them will be realized; during the millennial reign of Christ, God’s original purpose will be brought to full flower and fruit by the Lord Jesus from Jerusalem, and all of the dynamics of secular ad spiritual power will be concentrated in his hands” (John Phillips, Exploring the Book of Daniel, p. 51).

“Israel failed.  The long history of the nation of Israel in the Promised Land was a record of rebellion, idolatry, and apostasy.  At length, God terminated abruptly Israel’s secular supremacy.  He handed Jerusalem, which was to have been the world’s capital, to a Gentile world power, Babylon.  The temple, which was to have been a house of prayer for all nations, He consigned to the flames.  Thus began the first of the two periods of prophetic significance, the ‘times of the Gentiles.’  During this period, world empires and the city of Jerusalem are to remain solidly in Gentile hands.  For ‘Jerusalem,’ Jesus said, ‘shall be trodden down to the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled’ (Luke 21:24)” (John Phillips, Exploring the Book of Daniel, p 51).

“In 1967, the Jews regained possession of Jerusalem and have made it the capital of the reborn state of Israel.  They have vowed that they will never surrender it.  This has led to some foolish statements that the ‘times of the Gentiles’ will terminate with the coming, career, and collapse of the Antichrist.  For at least three and a half years, he will hold Jerusalem in bondage and will be ravishing the city at the very moment when Christ’s feet touch upon the Mount of Olives” (John Phillips, Exploring the Book of Daniel, p. 51).

So, during the “times of the Gentiles,” Israel’s secular power of the nations will be forfeited.

An equally important period in God’s dealings with the nation of Israel is that spoken of as “the fulness of the Gentiles” (Rom. 11:25-27).  During this period, spiritual ascendancy also is no longer in Hebrew hands but in Gentile (or the church’s) hands.  For two thousand years, from Abraham to Pentecost, whatever God had to say, He said in Hebrew and through a Jew.  After Pentecost, whatever God had to say, He said in Greek….When the Jews murdered their Messiah, spiritual supremacy was torn from the Jews, just as centuries earlier He had torn away their secular supremacy, and He gave that spiritual ascendancy to the church.

Both of these periods, “the times of the Gentiles” and the “fullness of the Gentiles” will end.  The “fullness of the Gentiles” will end with the rapture of the church.  During the tribulation, God will once again speak to the world primarily through Jews (Rev. 11, 7).  The “times of the Gentiles” will end with the return of Christ to a world gone mad.  The “times of the Gentiles” will end with the return of Christ to set up His millennial kingdom on this planet, centered at Jerusalem.

Thomas Constable notes these features of the image:

Several features of this image are noteworthy:  First, the head is the only member of the body made of only one metal.  All the other parts had more than one substance, with the exception of the arms.  Specifically, the upper torso was silver but bronze lower down.  The same was true of the legs and feet.

Second, there is a consistently decreasing value of the substances beginning at the top and proceeding to the bottom of the image.  Gold is the most precious.

In his book on Daniel, John F. Walvoord makes this observation:

“The descending scale of value of the four metals suggests the degeneration of the human race through the ages….This concept contradicts the evolutionist’s interpretations of human history.  Instead of man beginning in the dust and consummating in fine gold, God reveals man in the times of the Gentiles to begin with fine gold and end in dust” (Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation, p. 66).

However, while the parts of the image decrease in value, they increase in strength as we move from kingdom to kingdom.  Of course, this is a terrible combination—to decrease in morality while increasing in strength.

Third, the image was top-heavy.  The specific gravity of gold is about 19.3, silver about 10.51, brass about 8.5, iron at 7.6 and clay at 1.9.  So from the first, the image is doomed to topple, and this would be the case in the history of these kingdoms.  Each successive part of the body, as we move downward, would be the conqueror of the previous kingdom.

John Phillips comments on this, saying, “…although God ordained and allowed Gentile world empires to wax and wane and to rule and dominate the earth, He never intended this innovation, made necessary by Israel’s sins, to be permanent” (John Phillips, Exploring the Book of Daniel, p. 53).  The “times of the Gentiles” would eventually come to an end at the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Fourth, the substances progress from the softest to the hardest, top to bottom.  The feet, however, are a non-adhering combination of very hard and hard but fragile materials.  The clay in view may have been baked clay that the Babylonians used as tiles in construction projects.

Fifth, as we will see in Daniel’s interpretation, the focus concentrates on the head and the feet, the beginning and ending of Gentile rule.  The in-between stages were passed over in silence and became the subject of later visions.

The disturbing part of this dream is what happened to this glorious image.  It was smashed to smithereens by a rock!

34 As you looked, a stone was cut out by no human hand, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in pieces, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.

Without a doubt this is the climax of the vision.  After the stone strikes the image, the image is demolished and the stone expands into a mountain, eventually filling the whole earth.  “The composite statue was then reduced to powder by a huge stone (v. 34) and then the powder was blown away by the wind (v. 35)” (Gleason Archer, Jr. Daniel in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 7, p. 45).

Note that the rock/mountain was not a part of the four-part image. The Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek, and Roman kingdoms were purely of this world, while the “stone was cut out by no human hand” (v. 34).  It was heavenly in origin and eternal in duration (v. 44), representing a fifth kingdom vastly superior to the previous four.

The shattering was so thorough that the pieces “became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found” (v. 35b)—an image of divine judgment (cf. Psa. 1:4).  No part of the image could endure the stone, which “became a great mountain and filled the whole earth” (Dan. 2:35c).  This worldwide dominion was something ascribed to no other metal or body part—the metals were all vulnerable, but the stone was invincible.

With the words “This was the dream,” Daniel signaled that the time had now come for the interpretation.  Since the king had not questioned any detail of the retelling, Daniel had succeeded in part one of his task, doing more than any of the king’s advisors could do.

The interpretation of the image, which we will finish next week, is given in vv. 37-45.

36 “This was the dream. Now we will tell the king its interpretation. 37 You, O king, the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, and the might, and the glory, 38 and into whose hand he has given, wherever they dwell, the children of man, the beasts of the field, and the birds of the heavens, making you rule over them all—you are the head of gold. 39 Another kingdom inferior to you shall arise after you, and yet a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth. 40 And there shall be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron, because iron breaks to pieces and shatters all things. And like iron that crushes, it shall break and crush all these. 41 And as you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom, but some of the firmness of iron shall be in it, just as you saw iron mixed with the soft clay. 42 And as the toes of the feet were partly iron and partly clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly brittle. 43 As you saw the iron mixed with soft clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage,[c] but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay. 44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever, 45 just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall be after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure.”

The interpretation of the dream revolves around three factors: initial domination, then deterioration and ultimately disintegration of each of these kingdoms.  “The dream and the interpretation given to Daniel were actually quite simple, at least if we focus our attention on its central message, and yet at the same time incredibly profound” (Iain Duguid, Daniel in Reformed Expository Commentary, p. 36).

We’ve been looking at the impossible situation that Nebuchadnezzar put his royal advisors in.  Wanting to see whether they could truly interpret his troubling dream, he refused to tell it to them.  Since none could, he determined that all would be terminated.

Only one man could both tell him his dream and interpret it to him, Daniel.  Daniel diplomatically approached the king and asked for time, then went home and prayed with his friends.  God answered his prayers by communicating what he needed to tell the king.  But Daniel doesn’t go immediately to the king, rather he stops and takes the time to give praise back to God for His help.

In vv. 20-24 we have Daniel’s prayer of praise and thanks to God.  This is the second thing most of us forget to do, to thank God for His answer.

Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven.  Daniel answered and said: “Blessed be the name of God forever and ever, to whom belong wisdom and might.  He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding; he reveals deep and hidden things; he knows what is in the darkness, and the light dwells with him.  To you, O God of my fathers, I give thanks and praise, for you have given me wisdom and might, and have now made known to me what we asked of you, for you have made known to us the king’s matter.”

Verses 20-21 are often thought of as the theme verses for the book of Daniel:

“Blessed be the name of God forever and ever, to whom belong wisdom and might.  He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings”

The book of Daniel and this very dream that Nebuchadnezzar had dreamed would illustrate how history is “His story” and he sovereignly “removes kings and sets up kings” because He is the Sovereign King over all of history.  The “God of heaven” alone possesses the power to control world events.  The future does not rest in the hands of the Babylonian kings or their gods.  The gods of the nations are powerless to either bless or curse their followers (Isaiah 46:5-10).  They cannot affect the future because they are blind, dumb and impotent (Isa. 44:18).

On the other hand, Israel’s God does not merely control the future; he also reveals the future to his servants.  He gives wisdom to the wise and reveals mysteries of the future, as He does for Daniel here. 

This is precisely what the Babylonian diviners wrote off as impossible (2:11), because they knew that the gods do not dwell with them.  Yet Israel’s God, even though He is transcendent and exalted far above the heavens, does dwell with the humble and contrite of spirit (Isa. 57:15).

God determines when in history events are to take place and how long each process or phase in history is to endure. Thus Yahweh not only decreed the fall and destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.—an event future for Daniel in 602 B.C.—but also the exact number of years the captivity would last (cf. Dan. 9:2).

That Daniel referred to God as “the God of heaven” is significant.  Daniel’s God was the God “of mercies” (v. 18), a very close and personal God, unlike the remote demon gods of the Babylonians.  But He was also the transcendent “God of heaven.”  And while the wise men of Babylon might try to read the stars, Daniel knew the God who made the stars.

Prior to Israel’s captivity, the abiding presence of God departed from the temple (Ezekeil 8:4-6; 9:3; 10:4, 18-19; 11:22-23) leading to its eventual destruction at the hands of Babylon.  Thus, when God’s manifest presence is no longer dwelling on earth, this title emphasizes His rule from heaven rather than from earth.  Also, its use in Daniel is intended to emphasize Israel’s God as the One in command of the heavens rather than the astral bodies worshiped by the Babylonians.  The information the king seeks cannot be obtained from any pagan wise man on earth because its source requires a relationship with the God of heaven.

John Phillips notes that this title occurs for the first time in 2 Chronicles 26:23, the last verse of the last book of the Jewish canon.  It was a name that was introduced into the Bible because God’s earthly people, Israel, had become Lo Ammi, “not my people” and because God had withdrawn His presence from them.  It is a title that demarcates that they were now in “the times of the Gentiles,” a time when God acts from heaven rather than from between the cherubim in the midst of the temple as the God of Israel.

Thomas Constable further notes: “This title for God appears five times in this chapter (vv. 18, 19, 28, 37, 44) plus elsewhere, particularly in books that have pagan Babylon as their setting.  It appears in 5:23; nine times in Ezra; four times in Nehemiah; and in Genesis 24:3 and 7; Psalm 136:26; and Jonah 1:9.  The Babylonians worshipped the heavens, but Yahweh is the God over all the heavens, not just the God of heaven. He is sovereign over all” (https://soniclight.com/tcon/notes/html/daniel/daniel.htm#_ftnref109).

“Blessed be the name” is significant in that the name stands in Holy Scripture for the nature or revealed character of God, and not a mere label or title.

Daniel’s prayer of praise indicates that God is both omniscient and omnipotent (“wisdom and might”) and that God is sovereignly in control of “times and seasons,” and “he removes kings and sets up kings.”  This may be the very thing that Nebuchadnezzar was so worried about—the future of his kingdom.  What would become of him?  What about his legacy?  Would Babylon survive?

These kings believed that they themselves put themselves on the throne, through the wisdom and power of their gods.  Daniel’s assertion that the God of Israel was in fact the originator and grantor of human authority was a strong denial of any perceived role for the gods of the nations.

Nebuchadnezzar was raised up by God (Dan. 1:2; 2:37), but was slow to learn he would also be removed by God (Dan. 4:26, 31; 5:21).  The last ruler of Babylon, Belshazzar, failed to learn this lesson (Dan. 5:21, 28).  “In his dream, Nebuchadnezzar will begin to learn that it is God who is sovereign as He sets up and removes empires. Later, in his second God-given dream (chapter 4), the king will learn in a most personal way that God, not Nebuchadnezzar, is sovereign” (Paul Benware, Daniel’s Prophecy of Things to Come).

This description of God, who is in control of “times and seasons,” can be contrasted to Daniel 7:25 where the little horn, the future world ruler, shall “think to change times and laws,” that is, take the place of God who “changes the times and the seasons” (Dan 2:21).

God turns a king’s heart wherever He wishes (Prov. 21:1).  He will soon make use of Cyrus to release the Jews after the Medo-Persian empire overthrows Babylon.  Yet Cyrus did not know Him (Isa. 44:28; 45:1-4).  At the time of the last Gentile kingdom, God will turn the hearts of the ten toes (ten horns) to give the authority of their kingdoms to the beast (Rev. 17:17).  This same point is made in the New Testament (Rom. 13:1, 4).

Daniel mentioned God’s wisdom and power at the beginning and at the end of his praise (vv. 20, 23), and he illustrated both characteristics in between.  This entire book clearly reveals God’s wisdom and power.

“It should fill us with joy, that infinite wisdom guides the affairs of the world.  Many of its events are shrouded in darkness and mystery, and inextricable confusion sometimes seems to reign.  Often wickedness prevails, and God seems to have forgotten the creatures that He has made.  Our own path through life is dark and devious, and beset with difficulties and dangers.  How full of consolation is the doctrine, that infinite wisdom directs every event, brings order out of confusion, and light out of darkness, and, to those who love God, causes all things, whatever be their present aspect and apparent tendency, to work together for good” (J. L. Dagg, Manual of Theology, Gano Books, 1982 edition of original 1857 edition published by The Southern Baptist Publication Society, p. 86-87).

“To do anything less than commit ourselves completely to our Lord in simple trust during the troubling times in our lives is to insult His wisdom.  To resist Him, question Him, doubt Him, or criticize what He allows in our lives is to deny that He is the only wise God, and claim that we are wiser than He” (Richard Strauss, Treasures of Wisdom).

God in His grace grants us His wisdom often through four sources: prayer (James 1:5), Bible reading (Psa. 19:7), wise counsel (Prov. 12:15) and godly relationships (Prov. 13:20).

God enables his servants to have wisdom and knowledge (v. 21b) and he “reveals deep and hidden things” and “he knows what is in the darkness” so that Daniel could interpret Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. 

In the immediate context, Daniel refers to God’s ability to see the unknown and to expose it—as in the hidden dream of Nebuchadnezzar.  This light illumines what would otherwise be hidden or unknown.  There is nothing remaining in darkness before God’s omniscient gaze.

In other passages, we find God is the source of light (Gen. 1:3; John 1:3-5).  Indeed, it is part of His very nature (1 John. 1:5-7).  In the gospel of John, the Logos, Christ, is identified as the light of the world (John 1:9; 3:19; 8:12; 9:5; 12:46).

This light—provided by Daniel’s interpretation—provides the sought-after answer Nebuchadnezzar’s soul desired.  Only God can provide the answer to the issues of the heart and eternity.  “So the great existential questions of life and death continue to be insoluble to the worldly wise. Without divine revelation, there is only conjecture and subjective opinion” (Gleason Archer Jr. Daniel).

God not only controls the future, but reveals the future to his servants.  This is the reason why Israel should never depend upon idols, for they cannot predict the future (Isa. 41:21-42:9).  The gods cannot deliver the nations, cannot create, cannot predict the future, and therefore, should not be worshipped. 

And again, Daniel says…

To you, O God of my fathers, I give thanks and praise, for you have given me wisdom and might, and have now made known to me what we asked of you, for you have made known to us the king’s matter.” (Daniel 2:23)

Walvoord comments on how Daniel puts God first in this sentence, emphasizing by position in the sentence, “to you.”  Like the Psalmist, he wants to say, “Not to us, O LORD, not to us, but to your name give glory,” (Psalm 115:1).

Perhaps Daniel’s reference to “God of my fathers” is his understanding that he was experiencing God’s compassion in a way similar to how his spiritual forefathers experienced it—in very personal and immediate ways and through prayer.  The “God of heaven” was the “God of my fathers” (vv. 19, 23).  Daniel knew that he stood in the line of all the great covenants that God had made with His people.  As a descendant of Judah (Daniel 1:3, 6), the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham.  This is one of the titles God has taken to Himself.

God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations” (Exod. 3:15)

This name emphasizes God’s covenant faithfulness and is rooted in the covenant He established with Abraham, who was called from the very region where Daniel now found himself captive.  Abraham left “Ur of the Chaldeans” (Gen. 11:28; 15:7; Neh. 9:7) bound for the Promised Land of Israel and now Daniel finds himself back to the land of the Chaldeans!  Yet despite all outward appearance, Daniel understood God was still bound by His promise to the fathers (Gen. 12:1-3; Gen. 15:7; 17:19-21; 21:12; 22:18; 25:5, 11, 23; 26:3-5; 26:24; 27:27; 28:3-4, 13-15; 32:9; 35:11; 48:4; 49:10).  It was God’s covenant faithfulness standing as a guarantee behind Daniel and his companions who found themselves back in the region of Ur under foreign domination.

And Daniel gives him “thanks and praise” because God had given “what we asked of you,” (did you notice the plural?), the “wisdom and might” needed to communicate to the king.  Walvoord notes: “Notice should be made of the pronouns, namely, that while the revelation was given to Daniel as an individual, it was what ‘we [plural] asked of you,’ and through Daniel the king’s secret was ‘made known unto us,’ that is, Daniel’s companions. Daniel does not attribute to his own prayers any special efficacy.”

The prayers in the book of Daniel bring more than deliverance for Daniel, his companions, and the nation.  In heaven’s response, important revelation from God will be recorded for the benefit of all mankind.

Within a few years of this night, the entire Jewish race will come under threat in Persia.  In response, Mordecai, Esther, and the Jews of Persia fast and pray to obtain deliverance (Esther 4:15-16).

This doxology is at the structural and theological center of this chapter, and, in fact, “God’s sovereignty and wisdom surge like mighty rivers throughout the whole book and figure in other biblical doxologies that praise his might and wisdom (cf. 1 Chron. 29:11; Rom. 11:33-36).

This assertion that Israel’s God is the one who alone possesses all power and wisdom was an important reminder to Daniel’s hearers.  As exiles in Babylon, they were surrounded by alternative religions that all claimed to offer access to the hidden mysteries of the universe.  But the events of this chapter expose the emptiness to their claims: there is only one God who reveals the future, because there is only one God who controls the future.

We also need to be reminded of this truth today.  It is not the politicians, the celebrities or the scientists who control this world, but God alone.  The wisdom of the world may at times look outwardly impressive, but only God truly possesses wisdom and knowledge.  He alone has the power to work all things according to His will (Eph. 1:9; Romans 8:28).

Daniel was now confident that the information that God had given him would save their lives.  This confidence is testimony to the clarity and obvious supernatural source of this revelation.  Daniel did not need to contrive an answer that he hoped would satisfy the king, as the Babylonian seers might have tried.  He simply needed to declare the revelation that the only living and true God had given him.

Throughout the book Daniel would have equal confidence in the other prophecies God gave to him, even if they dealt with great details of future events.

When we have wonderful answers to prayer, then we should testify to God’s goodness and greatness, which is exactly what Daniel does in vv. 24-30.

David Jeremiah notes: “As we see the actions of a boy growing into a man, a composite picture of Daniel begins to appear.  He is composed before crisis, courageous before the captain who is to take his life, confident before God in prayer, careful before his success to give praise to the Lord, and when God answers his prayer he is contrite in his spirit” (Handwriting on the Wall, p. 55).

Warren Wiersbe concludes: “When God’s people face a crisis, they need to follow the example of Daniel and his friends and take the matter to the Lord in prayer.  Faith is living without scheming, and faith brings glory to God.  Daniel and his friends couldn’t take credit for what happened because it came from the hand of God.  “Call upon Me in the day of trouble, I will deliver you and you shall glorify Me” (Psalm 50:15).  “Whatever God can do faith can do,” said A. W. Tozer, “and whatever faith can do prayer can do when it is offered in faith.  An invitation to prayer is, therefore, an invitation to omnipotence, for prayer engages the Omnipotent God and brings Him into our human affairs” (The Set of the Sail, p. 33).