HOMILETICS
SECT. XII.—THE GOLDEN IMAGE (Chap. Daniel 3:1-7)
Sudden conversions not always lasting ones. Mere impulses often evanescent. Men’s goodness sometimes “as the early cloud or as the morning dew that passeth away.” The stony-ground hearers “with joy anon receive the word, but dure only for a while.” Some more liable than others to be suddenly moved—impulsive characters. Nebuchadnezzar apparently such. Liable to be suddenly and strongly moved, both to good and evil. On hearing Daniel’s description and interpretation of his dream, he felt convinced that Daniel’s God was the true one. Under the influence of this conviction, he had raised Daniel, and at his request his three friends, to the highest offices in the state. He appeared a converted man, and in a certain sense perhaps was one. But there are different kinds of conversion. There are those which reach the centre of the soul, and those which only touch the circumference. Much may be changed before the heart is so. The suburbs of a city may be taken when the city itself is not. Even the city may be taken while the citadel remains in the hands of the besieged. Saul, the future king of Israel, had another heart given him, but not a new heart. We may have new notions without a new nature. Providences, appeals, human appliances may produce the one; only divine almighty power can impart the other. The sow, only washed externally, wallows again in the mire. As yet, at least, Nebuchadnezzar’s conversion only of this character. Time had effaced his impressions; and Daniel’s frequent and necessary absence from court might leave him open to unfavourable influences. Thus in an evil hour, whether from a feeling of pride in desiring to erect a symbol of his own greatness [83], or a wish to introduce a new deity for his own future glory, or a sudden fit of superstitious devotion to his god Bel-Merodach [84], or the idea of employing religion for a political purpose in the consolidation of his extensive but heterogeneous empire [85], or, finally, which is perhaps the most likely, from the wily suggestion of envious courtiers, as in the case of Darius and the lions’ den, Nebuchadnezzar, notwithstanding his former confession of the true God, resolves to erect in the plains of Dura [86] a colossal image of gold, and to command all his subjects, at a given signal, to fall down and worship it. We may notice—
[83] “The image which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up” (Daniel 3:2). Dr. Rule observes that about three centuries and a half before the event narrated in the passage before us, an Assyrian king, named Asshur-akh-bal, as he relates in his own annals, erected a similar image in one of the cities which he had conquered. The king says: “I made an image of my majesty; the laws and emblems of my true religion I wrote upon it, and in the city of Isuri I set it up.” Dr. Rule thinks that the object exposed by Nebuchadnezzar for public reverence was no doubt intended to be an image of his majesty.
[84] “Whoso falleth not down, and worshippeth” (Daniel 3:6). Dr. Smith remarks that Nebuchadnezzar’s first care, after obtaining quiet possession of his kingdom after the first Syrian expedition, was to rebuild the temple of Bel (Bel-Merodach) out of the spoils of the Syrian war. Dr. Taylor thinks Bel-Merodach the idol intended by the image. “He who pays homage to Merodach,” one of Nebuchadnezzar’s titles. “We commonly observe, as peculiar to Nebuchadnezzar, a disposition to rest his fame on his great works rather than in his military achievements; and a strong religious spirit, manifesting itself especially in a direction which is almost exclusive to one particular god, though his own tutelary deity and that of his father was Nebo (Mercury), yet his worship, his ascriptions of praise, his thanksgivings, have in almost every case for their object the god Merodach. Under his protection he placed his son Evil-Merodach. Merodach is his ‘lord,’ his ‘great lord,’ the ‘joy of his heart,’ the ‘great lord who has appointed him to the empire of the world, and has confided to his care the far-spread people of the earth.’ He was to him ‘the supreme chief of the gods.’ ”—Rawlinson, quoted by Dr. Taylor. Dr. Taylor remarks that, according to Prideaux, the festival took place after Nebuchadnezzar’s return from the destruction of Jerusalem, with the blinded King Zedekiah among his captives; and that it is by no means improbable that he meant on that special occasion to exalt his god above the Jehovah of the Hebrews.
[85] The erection of the statue is believed by Dr. Taylor and others to have had also a political design, the king’s religious fervour, as in the case of multitudes since his day, being subordinated to imperial policy, and unity of worship sought only that it might contribute to the political unity of the empire.
[86] “The plain of Dura.” According to Dr. Smith and others, not Dur on the left bank of the Tigris, and a hundred and twenty miles from Babylon, but more probably in the vicinity of the mound of Dowair or Duair, to the south-east of Babylon, where Oppert discovered the pedestal of a colossal statue,—a singular attestation of the authenticity of the narrative. The older commentators, as Junius, Polanus, and Willet, thought of the Deera in Susiana, mentioned by Ptolemy. Hengstenberg observes that the name is found nowhere else, neither in the Scriptures nor in profane writers, and that the author omits to afford any more precise geographical definition, assuming the place to be known to his readers; a corroborative evidence of the genuineness of the book.
I. The Image and its Erection. The image, doubtless erected on a pedestal, one of gigantic size [87], and constructed of, or overlaid with, the most precious metal [88]. What the king of Babylon did must be vast and colossal. Such was the city itself which he had built, or rather rebuilt, with its mountain of hanging gardens. Nebuchadnezzar’s empire colossal, and everything must be in keeping with it. A man’s ambitious aims often grow with his success. Nebuchadnezzar’s ideas now like those of his predecessors on the same plain of Shinar: “Let us build us a tower whose top shall reach into heaven.” Possibly the conception from the image seen in his dream. That dream, that should have humbled his pride and taught him the vanity of all earthly greatness and glory, perhaps made now the occasion of rebellion against the God who graciously sent it. Man’s fallen nature perverts mercies into mischiefs. Sin often makes what was designed for our benefit to become our bane. God’s gifts frequently made objects of idolatry to the dishonour of the Giver. The brazen serpent, which was given as the means of healing to one generation, made the object of idolatrous worship by another. Before the image is worshipped, however, it must be solemnly dedicated to the deity to honour whom it was erected and whom it was intended to represent. This was done in the presence of all the grandees of the realm [89].
[87] “Whose height was threescore cubits.” The immense image, says M. Gaussen, about a hundred feet high, though not higher than the bronze statue of Carlo Borromeo in the vicinity of the Lago Maggiore, which is sixty-four feet in height, and rests on a pedestal thirty-six feet high. The Colossus at Rhodes, dedicated to the sun, was seventy cubits high.
[88] “An image of gold.” Dr. Taylor remarks that the same terms being else where employed to denote that which was simply overlaid with gold, we may conclude that the image was formed of wood covered with a thin layer of gold; even thus, however, sufficiently costly. Matthew Henry’s remark on the passage has too much truth in it: “The worshippers of false gods are not wont to stick at charges in setting up gods and worshipping them. ‘They lavish gold out of the bag’ for that purpose (Isaiah 46:6), which shames our niggardliness in the worship of the true God.”
[89] “The King sent to gather together the princes, the governors,” &c. Of the officers of the court and state, we have (1.) The “princes” אֲחַשְׁדַּרְפְּנַיָּא. akhash darpenaiya), according to Keil and Hengstenberg, from kshetra, a kingdom or province, and ban, an overseer or guardian; “princes.” Gesenius, however, regards the word as the Hebrew form of the Zend or Pehlevic kshatrap (a satrap), and understands “presidents of the greater provinces;” officers among the ancient Persians invested with civil and military power; deputies and lieutenants of the king, whose splendour they imitated. Wintle, like the Sept. and Vulgate, renders the word “satraps.” (2.) The “governors” (סִגְנַיָּא, signaiya, a word of Persian origin), according to Hengstenberg, “chief magistrates of Babylon; the rulers of provinces;” Sept. “generals or commanders.” Wintle renders the word “senators.” Dr. Rule regards them as governors over districts, officers of the civil order. Rendered “governors” in chap. Daniel 2:48, and applied to those who presided over colleges of the Magi. (3.) The “captains” (פַּחֲוָתָא pakhavatha), superintendents of single parts of a province in the Assyrian empire, or of a smaller province than a satrapy. The word probably of Persian origin. According to Benfey, from the Sanscrit paksha, a companion or friend, and so a prefect of a province, as the associate of the king; a pasha.—Hengstenberg. Dr. Rule thinks them to have been of the military order, dukes or generals. (4.) The “judges” (אֲדַרְגָּזְרַיָּא adargoz-raiya), from אדר (adar), dignity, and גזרין (gozrin), judges; the chief judges.—Gesenius. So Wintle. Dr. Rule makes them viceroys over the provinces. (5.) The “treasurers” (גְּדָבְרַיָּא, gedobhraiya), like גִּזְבָּר (gizbar) in Ezra 1:8 and elsewhere, the sibilant ז being changed into ד; from the original Semitic גנז (ganaz), contracted into גז (gaz), the Aramaic form, and the Persian termination var, serving for the formation of possessives. The officers who had charge of the royal exchequer, like the eunuch of Ethiopia in Acts 8.—Gesenius. According to Dr. Rule, they belonged to the fiscal order of officers and were collectors of the revenue. (6.) The “councillors” (דְּתָבְרַיָּא dethobraiya), promulgators of the law, from דַּת (dath), law, and the Persian termination var; lawyers, judges.—Hengstenberg. So Rule, officers of the legal class; doctors or lawyers. (7.) The “sheriffs” (תִּפְתָּיֵא, tiphtaye), perhaps from the Arabic fata, to give a legal opinion or judgment; whence mufti; counsellors, perhaps lawyers or pleaders.—Hengstenberg. The Vulgate has “prefects.” Dr. Rule thinks them officers in the executive department, being responsible for the execution of justice. The exact knowlege displayed by the writer of the entire political constitution of the Chaldees, a corroborative evidence of the genuineness of the book. Bertholdt admits that the statements in this chapter respecting the Chaldean political constitution are so copious that it must necessarily have been written in Upper Asia. Gesenius also admits the authenticity of the statements; remarking that “since the constitution of the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian empires had certainly great similarity; since, too, the descriptions of the Persian court occurring in the Book of Esther always differ essentially from those of the Book of Daniel; and finally, since the incidental but cotemporary notices of Jeremiah agree in many points; these statements, which besides have the analogy of the whole East in their favour, are not to be rashly rejected.” Impossible to explain this knowledge in a Maccabean Jew. With the occupation of the Greeks everything took another form, and most certainly the administration of the court and of the highest offices of the state.—Hengstenberg.
II. The command to worship it. The image erected not for the people to admire but to worship. The people not left to worship it at their option, but commanded by royal authority to do so, and that with the penalty of death on refusing. As the king’s god, it must be worshipped by the people also, and that as a matter of obedience and loyalty to himself. Natural for fallen man to stretch his power and authority to the utmost limits. Rulers, not content with obedience in things civil and secular, must also prescribe in sacred ones; not satisfied with the things that are Cæsar’s, they must have also the things that are God’s. Perhaps they think to render themselves and their kingdom more acceptable to God by compelling others to worship Him in the way they themselves think best; forgetting that religion is a matter between each man and God, and that conscience is a domain which even kings may not enter. Persuasion and example in matters of religion, a prince’s privilege; authority the prerogative of God. To command here, without a command from God, both a mischief and a mistake. Hence persecuting edicts, Inquisitions, and Star-chambers. To all such Nebuchadnezzar [90] now led the way. The command was, within one short hour after the sound of the music [91] to worship the image or die the death. The penalty, doubtless, annexed with special reference to the Jewish exiles: the idolatrous Chaldeans needed no such enforcement. The death a very terrible one—cast into a fiery furnace [92]. The penalty the flames. That furnace the prototype of the auto da fés, and the fires of Smithfield in later days. Superstition and cruelty twin sisters. The Babylon of the Old Testament followed by the Babylon of the New. Both of them the “mother of harlots” and the persecutor of the saints. The saints burned by the former under the title of rebels; by the latter, under that of heretics. The Papal Bull, De Comburendo, ‘concerning the burning of heretics,’ a subsequent edition of the present edict of Nebuchadnezzar.
[90] “The same hour.” Dr. Rule remarks, that if, as Sir H. Rawlinson calculates, there were sixty divisions of the day and night in Babylon, and not twenty-four, as afterwards in Greece, the vengeance would be swift indeed—only twenty-four minutes. “Who can say that the shadow of the pillar (image) itself would not serve to measure the brief space between the sentence and the execution?”
[91] “All kinds of music,” זְמָרָא (zemara), music in general, though among the modern Egyptians the name of a pipe. The Greek names of some of the instruments mentioned are alleged as an objection to the genuineness of the book. One of the objectors to certain parts of it, however, J. D. Michaelis, remarks in reference to his own arguments on this head, that “the more closely they were examined, the more completely most of them disappeared.” Hengstenberg remarks, “The dispute is at most about the names of three musical instruments; and who can deny that these might, by even the slightest intercourse of the Greeks with the Babylonians, have found their way to the latter?” Dr. Pusey, who ably follows up Hengstenberg on this subject, observes: “It were rather a marvel if the golden music-loving city had not gathered to itself foreign musical instruments; or if, in a religious inauguration at Babylon, all the variety of music which it could command had not been united to grace the festival and bear along the minds and imaginations of the people.” Dr. Pusey properly insists on the well-known fact that “the name follows the thing;” but Pareau, quoted by Hengstenberg, observes that the similarity in the names of musical instruments is of such a kind that the Greek appellatives are rather to be considered as having an Eastern origin. The instruments mentioned are—(1.) The “cornet,” קַרְנָא (karna), the Hebrew קֶרֶן (keren), a horn. (2.) “Flute,” מַשְׁרוֹקִיתָא (mashrokitha), the Chaldaic for a flute or pipe. The Septuagint and Theodotion: σύριγξ; Gr. Ven.: αὐλός. (3.) “Harp,” קַיתְרוֹס (kathros or kithros), which Gesenius says was received into the Semitic language from abroad, being the Greek κίθαρις or κιθάρα, a “harp,” as both the Septuagint, Theodotion, and the Vulgate translate it. Hengstenberg admits that it certainly appears to be the same word as the Greek κίθαρις, but asks, since most of the names of Greek musical instruments were of foreign origin, why should just this one be originally Greek? (4.) “Sackbut,” סַבְּכָא (sabbecha), according to Hesychius, an instrument like a harp, but with only four strings. Athenæus says that the sambuca, called the Phœnician lyre, was an invention of the Syrians. Its foreign or non-Greek origin is maintained by Gesenius, and generally admitted. (5.) “Psaltery,” פְּסַנְתְּרִין (pesanteriu), according to Gesenius and others, the Greek ψαλτήριον, received into the Chaldaic language; which, however, is questioned by Hengstenberg. (6.) “Dulcimer,” סוּמְפֹּנְיָא (sumponia), retained untranslated by the Septuagint, Theodotion, the Vulgate, and the Greek Venetian; according to Gesenius, a bagpipe with two pipes inserted into a bag, which he says, on the authority of Polybius in Athenæus, was, at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, used by Greeks living in Syria under that name. Symphonia, though with the old Romans used to indicate “music,” or the concert of various instruments, was used also by the later Latins to denote a musical instrument, but rather a drum than a pipe. Saadias, on the passage, explains it as a pastoral instrument of the nature of a bagpipe, as a similar instrument used in Italy is still called sampogna. Hengstenberg questions the Greek derivation of the word, and the name of such an instrument in the older Greek language.
[92] “Be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace.” The punishment of death by burning in ovens was entirely Babylonian, while that practised by the Medes and Persians was the casting into a lions’ den. The description here given of the former mode of punishment admitted to be a proof that the writer had seen such an oven, and had been present at an execution of the kind; while the accuracy of his knowledge is also shown by the fact that in the sixth chapter he attributes to the Medo-Persians, not this mode of punishing, but that peculiar to themselves—an incidental corroboration of the genuineness and authenticity of the history.—Hengstenberg.
III. The obedience to the command. The edict not only issued, but obeyed. No sooner were the first strains of the music heard, than, according to the proclamation of the herald [93], the blinded multitude fall prostrate before the image. The music probably intended also for greater honour to the god and greater attraction to the service. Perhaps to stimulate and intensify the devotion of the people. The power of music recognised in the church as well as on the battlefield. The fairest gifts often perverted to the foulest purposes. Superstition and idolatry greatly indebted to the strains of music. The people bow down to the royal idol with abundant goodwill. In the East especially, people follow a superior like a flock of sheep. One also must follow another. Each must be like his neighbour. If not the true God, it matters little what men worship. ‘Gods many and lords many.’ Babylon the land of graven images. Its people mad upon their idols. Rome acknowledged the gods of all nations. Christianity was opposed and persecuted, because it was opposed to all other religions, as the only true one. The carnal mind enmity against God, not against gods, or a god of our own imagining. Idolatry the depth of human degradation. The prostrate thousands on the plains of Dura a sight that might make angels weep. “There is nothing,” says Matthew Henry, “so bad which the careless world will not be drawn to by a concert of music, or driven to by a fiery furnace.”
[93] “An herald,” כְּרוֹז (c’roz), a crier, from כְּרַֽז (c’raz), a Chaldaic word meaning “to cry,” as a herald; used in the Targums and Talmud, and also in the Samaritan. The same word is found extensively in the Indo-Germanic tongues, the Sanscrit, Zend, and Persian; being the Greek κηρύσσω, to proclaim as a herald, and κράζω, to cry; the middle Latin criso; the German krieschen; and the English cry. Gesenius thinks the word is of Persian origin, though Hengstenberg believes it to be originally Semitic, and its relation to the Greek only accidental, or from onomatopoeia. He remarks that it is almost unanimously agreed by modern linguists that the names of Babylonian gods, kings, and other persons, which occur in the Bible and in profane writers, find their explanation in the Persian, the Chaldaic, and Assyrian languages; belonging, according to Gesenius and others, to the Medo-Persiau stock; and according to others, as Rosenmüller, to the Assyrian language, a dialect of the Medo-Persian, and so naturalised in Babylon, though the Assyrian predominated. Words of Persian origin also found in Jeremiah, and apparently even in Isaiah and Nahum. No argument therefore against the genuineness of the book.
We may observe as lessons from the passage—
1. The danger of losing good impressions and turning asiae from a good profession. Too many copies of Nebuchadnezzar to be found in the Christian Church. “Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world.” Constant need of David’s prayer: “Hold thou me up, and I shall be safe.”
2. Impressions, however good and deep, not to be mistaken for conversions. Present feelings neither to be slighted nor trusted to. A true conversion will in time produce its own evidence. “Bring forth fruits worthy of repentance.” “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
3. Mere human authority neither to be exercised nor yielded to in matters of religion. “Render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). So Acts 4:19. The case of a parent in regard to his children who are under the years of discretion, an apparent exception to the above rule. But even here the authority is to be exercised only in commanding what God has already enjoined. “I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment” (Genesis 18:19).
4. Care to be taken not to follow the multitude to do evil. That a practice is popular, no proof that it is right. Neither the rectitude of a course, nor the truth of an opinion, to be decided by the law of the greater number. “The customs of the people are vain.” “Wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be that go in thereat.”