Daniel 3:25
"God" or "gods"
By Dr. Ken Matto
Daniel 3:25 (KJV) He answered and said, Lo, I see four
men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form
of the fourth is like the Son of God.
Daniel 3:25 (ESV) He answered and said, “But I see
four men unbound, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and
the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.”
Another criticism that the modern version only
proponents (MVOP) level against the King James Bible is found in Daniel 3:25.
The question concerning this verse is should it be singular as “God” or should
it be plural as “gods?” The MVOP claim that Nebuchadnezzar was a polytheist and
there is no way that he would have understood that the Lord Jesus Christ was the
one in the fire with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Now a question must be
asked. Did God write the Bible according to the belief systems of the people
mentioned therein or did He write the Bible according to His own wisdom? Once we
get into the text, we will see that the King James Bible has rendered the word
properly as “God” and not “gods” as the modern versions do.
The Aramaic words found in the statement are as
follows, "dâmēh lebar 'ĕlâhı̂yn" The last word corresponds to the word
"elohim" in the Hebrew which shows the plurality of God. In other words, it does
not signify 3 gods but is used to show "three distinct persons" as one Godhead.
Now the Aramaic word "elahiyn" may be translated "gods or God" and the usage is
determined by the context.
Jeremiah 10:11 (KJV) Thus shall ye say unto them,
The gods that have not made
the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under
these heavens.
Daniel 3:18 (KJV) But if not, be it known
unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy
gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.
Jeremiah 10:11 is the only place outside of Daniel
where the word “elahiyn” is translated “gods.” In the book of Ezra, it is
translated “God” 43 times. So we see that the word is definitely used according
to context as many words in Scripture are.
When we look at the modern versions that say "son of
the gods" it is basically claiming son (singular) but gods (plural) so which son
of which god in the pantheon of gods of Babylon was he? The plural word "gods"
does not fit the context of the immediate statement that it is in. It is like 5
men standing next to each other and a little boy is brought out and introduced
as a son of the men. It does not make grammatical sense because the boy can only
be the son of one of the men. Now let us go further in the context.
Notice verse 26 that Nebuchadnezzar came by the furnace
and spoke into the furnace calling the three men servants of the most high God,
not gods. Even the ESV
translates it as “Most High God.” It
is the very same word used in verse 25.
We never translate the Scriptures according to how we believe someone may think,
we translate according to the underlying text.
Daniel 3:26 (ESV)
Then
Nebuchadnezzar came near to the door of the burning fiery furnace; he declared,
“Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, servants of the Most High God, come out, and
come here!” Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego came out from the fire.
Daniel 3:17 (KJV) If it be so, our God whom we
serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver
us out of thine hand, O king.
Notice the three Hebrew boys state that the God they
serve can deliver them. So they told Nebuchadnezzar about the God they serve,
which is in keeping with the context of the following verses of the furnace
scene. There would have been no need on Nebuchadnezzar's part to change it to a
plural "gods" since he was seeing a miracle and would have remembered they spoke
of them serving only one God and not many. Now finally we look at two more
verses in this chapter.
Daniel 3:28-29 (KJV) Then Nebuchadnezzar spake,
and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent
his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the
king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any
god, except their own God. {29} Therefore I make a decree, That every people,
nation, and language, which speak any thing amiss against the God of Shadrach,
Meshach, and Abednego, shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a
dunghill: because there is no other God that can deliver after this sort.
Four times in the closing verses of this chapter
Nebuchadnezzar mentions God (same word as in verse 25) and in all four mentions,
not one is made in the plural. Therefore, in verse 25, the word "God" stands as
the correct rendering which fits the context of the entire narrative in this
chapter.
Then the MVOP level another charge concerning the word
“son.” If you notice in verse 25, it is capitalized as “Son.” When the King
James translators saw this verse and knew that the word “elahiyn” would be
singular in this case because of context and not plural, then they knew that
this was a Christophany which was a pre-Bethlehem appearance of Christ.
Therefore, armed with that knowledge, they capitalized Son in respect to the
Lord Jesus Christ.
Psalm 2:7 (KJV) I will declare the decree: the
LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Psalm 2:12 (KJV) Kiss the Son, lest he be
angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
If you notice in Psalm 2, in verses 7 and 12, the word
“Son” is capitalized because it is directly referencing the Lord Jesus Christ. I
have yet to this day come across anyone who rejects the capitalization of those
two words, yet the MVOP attempt to make a claim that it should not be
capitalized in Daniel 3:25, when it is also referencing the Lord Jesus Christ.
So there you have it!