The following ‘exegesis’ (if we can call it that) is really no more than an attempt to wrestle with the major hermeneutical-pragmatic double question of this passage, viz., what is the head covering and in what sense is this text applicable today?

There are several views in vogue on the text, but within evangelicalism three or four come readily to mind:

(1) This text has no applicability to us today. Paul is speaking about a ‘tradition’ that he has handed on. Hence, since this is not the tradition of the modern church, we hardly need to consider this text.

(2) The head covering is the hair. Hence, the applicability today is that women should wear (relatively) long hair.

(3) The head covering is a real head covering and the text is applicable today, in the same way as it was in Paul’s day. Within this view are two basic sub-views:

• The head covering is to be worn by all women in the church service.
• The head covering is to be worn by women in the church service only when praying or prophesying publicly.

(4) The head covering is a meaningful symbol in the ancient world that needs some sort of corresponding symbol today, but not necessarily a head covering. This also involves the same two sub-views as #3 above.

My own convictions are that that view 4 is correct. The sub-view within this that I adopt is the second one: women only need to wear some symbol when praying or prophesying publicly. Below is a brief interaction with the various views, including a critique of each.

No Applicability View

This view is easy to dismiss. It is based on a faulty assumption about the meaning of ‘traditions’ (παραδόσεις) in v 2, as well as ‘custom’ (συνήθειαν) in v 16. A better case could be made from v 16, but only if one ignores v 2.

The term in v 16, συνήθειαν, is the more malleable of the two. It generally has to do with a habit. The word is used but thrice in the NT (here, John 18:39, and 1 Cor 8:7). In John 18 especially the term seems to convey just a noble practice (that of releasing a prisoner during Passover). Although it might be possible to conclude that the custom in John 18 was rooted in Jewish oral tradition and hence, for the Jews, elevated to the status of a binding law (something akin to the scape goat), we have no evidence that this is the case. Morris says that the practice is “shrouded in mystery.” It, however, might be alluded to in Pesachim 8.6 (in the Mishnah), but this is problematic. Nevertheless, we simply do not have enough evidence to conclude that it was a binding custom. First Corinthians 8:7 is similar. New converts who were formerly accustomed to idols need to be handled with kid gloves when it comes to the issue of meat offered to idols. Their ‘custom’--which they, as Christians, are still somewhat observing--is not something that Paul endorses. He would certainly rather that they all be strong Christians and not have such a custom. Hence, the custom here is not binding either. It is one borne of personal preference or attitude. In sum, when someone looks just at 1 Cor 11:16, a good case could be made that the practice in the early church of women wearing a head covering may well have been no more than a community-wide habit. Once, however, v 2 is examined, it is evident that v 16 is saying much more.

In v 2 Paul praises the church because they maintain the traditions (παραδόσεις) that he has handed down (παρέδωκα) to them. In v 3 he launches into one of those traditions (transitional δέ). That this is one of the traditions is seen in the repetition of the verb ἐπαινόω in v 2 and v 17. The same theme is in mind: how the church is following Paul’s instructions regarding corporate worship. (Apparently their obedience in the head-covering issue was greater because he does not explicitly ‘not praise’ them, while in v 17 he explicitly does ‘not praise’ them concerning the Lord’s Table.)

What is significant in v 2 is the richness of the terms παραδίδωμι and παραδόσις. The verb is used very frequently for passing on the truth to the next generation. Paul uses it 19 times. In positive contexts (i.e., other than those involving the ‘handing over’ of a criminal, etc.) the verb carries the force of doctrinal commitment every time. Cf. Rom 6:17 (“you became obedient from the heart to that pattern of teaching to which you were committed”); 1 Cor 11:23 (“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you”); 1 Cor 15:3 (on the death and resurrection of Christ). The other instances (negative) suggest a commitment of one to prison, death, etc. There is a certain applicability even here: the basic force of the verb is that one commits not just his mind, but his life to something. Christ gave himself up for us (Gal 2:20; Eph 5:2, 25).

The noun παραδόσις is no less rich in its theological implications. It is used but five times in Paul, but when it has to do with the traditions that he embraces as a Christian, such are intended to be binding on all. In 2 Thess 2:15 Paul instructs the believers to stand firm and hold on to the traditions that he had passed down to them. In 2 Thess 3:6, believers are commanded to stay away from any believers who do not abide by Paul’s traditions. Thus, the verb παραδίδωμι and its nominal cognate, παραδόσις cannot be treated lightly. They do not mean ‘tradition’ in the modern English sense of the word of a nice custom that one can dispense with if desired.

How do we reconcile 1 Cor 11:2 with 1 Cor 11:16? Verse 2 governs v 16. That is to say, because the practice was a παραδόσις, it was put on the level of orthopraxy. It was a doctrine that the early church followed. Since it was on this level, most of the churches followed it religiously. Hence, Paul could appeal to what other churches were doing (v 16) as an appeal to the reasonableness and pragmatic outworking of this ‘tradition.’ This would be like saying, “Christ died for you; therefore, you should observe the Lord’s Supper. Besides, other Christians are already doing this and none have a different practice.” The practice puts flesh to the doctrine.

In sum, the view that 1 Cor 11:2-16 has no relevance today is based squarely on the English text, but not the Greek. It assumes that such traditions are optional, while Paul used words to describe them that he had reserved for the tradition of the death and resurrection of Christ. Surely, such ‘traditions’ are not optional with Paul!¹

Head Covering = Hair

One of the most popular views today is that the head covering was actually the woman’s hair. This view is more difficult to assess. The exegesis of the text that adopts this view keys in on verse 15:

ἡ κόμη α᾿ντὶ περιβολαίου δέδοται--‘her hair is given [to her] in the place of a veil’

Often the assumption is that vv 2-14 describe a woman veiling and unveiling herself. If so, then the point of v 15 is that her hair is that veil. Often Numbers 5:18 is brought into the picture. Hurley argues:

The suspected adulteress of Numbers 5:18 was accused of repudiating her relation to her husband by giving herself to another. As a sign of this, her hair, which was done up on her head, was let loose. The Hebrew word which is used to describe both the letting loose of the hair and being unveiled (פרע) is translated in the Greek Old Testament by akatakalyptos, the word which Paul uses for ‘uncovered.’ Could it be that Paul was not asking the Corinthian women to put on veils, but was asking them to continue wearing their hair in the distinctive fashion of women?²

The statement from Hurley seems to imply that the LXX of Num 5:18 has ἀκατάκαλυπτος. If so, then Paul could possibly have been thinking of that text in 1 Cor 11. However, that term is not used in the Numbers text! Indeed, not much can be based on the the LXX’s use of this adjective, as it occurs in only one verse--and that in a textual variant (Lev 13:45 in codex Ac; B has ἀκάλυπτος and A* has ἀκατάλυπτος). To argue that Paul, in 1 Cor 11, means by ἀκατάκαλυπτος ‘let loose’ is akin to the argument that ‘all Indians walk single-file. At least the one I saw did.’ Further, BAGD gives for the meaning of this word in 1 Cor 11 uncovered, without even entertaining the possibility that it means ‘let loose.’ This definition is based on the available Hellenistic and classical evidence.³ Thus, Hurley’s argument lacks sufficient basis.

On the other hand, two points are significant: (1) No word for veil occurs in vv 2-14. Thus, that the hair is regarded by Paul as a veil in v 15 is not necessarily an argument that the hair is the same as the head covering that he is describing in these verses. (2) Throughout this pericope, Paul points out the similarities of long hair with a head covering. But his doing so strongly suggests that the two are not to be identified. Precisely because they are similar they are not identical. Note the following verses.

11:5-- “but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head--it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved.”

11:6-- “For if a woman will not cover herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should keep it covered.

11:7-- “For a man ought not to cover his head . . .”

11:10-- “For this reason a woman ought to have [a symbol of] authority on her head”

11:13-- “Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?”

11:15-- “but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory . . .”

Several points can be made here. (1) If ‘covering’ = ‘hair,’ then all men should shave their heads or go bald because the men are to have their heads uncovered. (2) If ‘covering’ = ‘long hair,’ then v 6 seems to suggest a tautology: “if a woman will not wear long hair, then she should cut off her hair.” But this in no way advances the argument. (3) The argument caves in by its own subtlety. To see ‘hair’ = ‘head covering’ means that one has to go through several exegetical hoops. In short, it hardly appears to be the plain meaning of the text. (4) Verses 10 and 15 would have to be saying the same thing if long hair is the same as a head covering. But this can hardly be the case. In v 10, a woman is required to wear a ‘symbol of authority.’ Such a symbol represents her submission, not her glory. Paul begins the verse by pointing back to v 9 (διὰ τοῦτο in v 10, ‘for this reason,’ is inferential). Because ‘woman was created for the sake of man’ she ought to wear a symbol of authority on her head. But in v 15, a woman’s long hair is her glory. The Greek is even more emphatic: the dative αὐτῇ is a dative of advantage. A literal translation would be: ‘it is a glory to her’ or ‘a glory accruing to her,’ or ‘to her advantage.’ Surely this is not the point of v 10!

To argue, then, that long hair is the woman’s head covering seems to miss the very point of the function of the head covering and of the long hair: one shows her submission while the other shows her glory. Both of these are contrasted with an uncovered head while praying or prophesying, or a shaved head at any time: such would speak of the woman’s humiliation and shame.

Real Head Covering, Applicable Today

The argument that a real head covering is in view and that such is applicable today is, in some respects, the easiest view to defend exegetically and the hardest to swallow practically. Since it is never safe to abandon one’s conscience regarding the truth of Scripture, I held to this view up until recently. Quite frankly, I did not like it (it is very unpopular today). But I could not, in good conscience, disregard it. Essentially, this view assumes three things: (1) that a real head covering is in view;⁴ (2) that Paul’s argument has a greater foundation than mere convention; and (3) that the head covering itself is an essential part of his viewpoint. Note the following arguments in support of this.

• Verse 2 (παραδίδωμι, παραδόσις) indicates that Paul’s instruction is part of the traditional package of doctrine that he was passing on to the Church (see discussion above, under ‘no applicability view’). But Paul here does not give any details of the instruction. That is picked up in the rest of the passage.
• Verses 3-9 base this instruction on a theological hierarchy and on creation. God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of the man, the man is the head of the woman. It is important to note that Paul is in no way arguing for the ontological inferiority of the woman to the man, for he roots his convictions in the Godhead. Christ is only functionally subordinate to the Father, not ontologically subordinate.⁵ The wife, too, is functionally subordinate to the husband, but in no way ontologically inferior (vv 11-12).
• Verse 10 bases the  woman’s symbol of subordination on a fine point of angelology (one that escapes us today, though conjectures abound).
• Verses 13-15 roughly constitute an argument from nature.
• Verse 16 is an argument from the collective wisdom of the church universal, for Christians elsewhere have no other practice.

Thus, the argument is a general theological conviction (as opposed to a mere sociological convention), though growing out of several key doctrines: (1) Nascent trinitarianism, (2) creation, (3) angelology, (4) general revelation, and (5) church practice. Thus, for Paul, disobedience to his instructions about the head covering smacked of a deficient angelology, defective anthropology and and ecclesiology, and a destructive trinitarianism, and ran aground on the rocks of general revelation. Further, to focus on v 16 as the sole basis (as the ‘no applicability’ view does) is to slide right through the heart of this pericope without observing anything.

The specific applications of this approach are generally two: (1) applicable whenever a woman is in the church service; (2) applicable whenever a woman prays or prophesies publicly. In brief, I take the second to be in view simply because it is explicit (vv 4-5). After the initial theological statement (vv 2-3), Paul introduces the topic at hand: men and women praying or prophesying in the assembly. That this same topic is in view is evident by its repetition in v 13 (‘if a woman prays’). It seems unwarranted to expand the application beyond what the initial topical statement (vv 4-5) suggests. That is to say, all of the arguments and all of the principles are geared toward and applicable to women praying and prophesying in the public setting. Incidentally, if this restriction is correct, this constitutes another argument against the ‘long hair’ view, for a woman cannot swap long hair for short and vice versa in a moment’s notice, as she could a head covering.

One thing remains: a critique of the real head covering as the normative symbol today.

The Meaningful Symbol View

This view adopts the exegesis of the real head-covering view with one exception. It does not regard a real head covering as essential to the view. This is the view that I currently adopt. In essence, it is based on an understanding of the role of head coverings in the ancient world vs. the modern world. In the ancient world head coverings were apparently in vogue in some parts of the Graeco-Roman empire. Some groups expected the men to wear head coverings; others expected women to wear them. Still others felt that such were optional for both men and women. It is not important to determine which group did what. The important thing to note is that the early church adopted a convention already in use in society and gave it a distinctively Christian hue. That Paul could say that no other churches had any other practice may well indicate how easily such a practice could be adopted. This finds parallels with baptism in Israel. The Pharisees did not ask John, “What are you doing?” Instead, they asked, “Why are you doing this?” They understood baptism (even though John’s baptism was apparently the first to be other-baptism rather than self-baptism); what they didn’t understand was John’s authority and what his baptism symbolized. In a similar way, the early church practice of requiring the women to wear a head covering when praying or prophesying⁶ would not have been viewed as an unusual request. In the cosmopolitan cities of Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Greece, no one would feel out of place. Head coverings were everywhere. When a woman wore one in the church, she was showing her subordination to her husband, but was not out of place with society. One could easily imagine a woman walking down the street to the worship service with a head covering on without being noticed.

Today, however, the situation is quite different, at least in the West. For a woman to wear a head covering⁷ would seem to be a distinctively humiliating experience. Many women--even biblically submissive wives--resist the notion precisely because they feel awkward and self-conscious. But the head covering in Paul’s day was intended only to display the woman’s subordination, not her humiliation. Today, ironically, to require a head covering for women in the worship service would be tantamount to asking them to shave their heads! The effect, therefore, would be just the opposite of what Paul intended. Thus, in attempting to fulfill the spirit of the apostle’s instruction, not just his words, some suitable substitute symbol needs to be found.

Two questions remain. First, how can we justify a different symbol of authority on a woman’s head if the head covering is now a symbol of humiliation? Second, what symbol should we use?

First, the justification comes from several angles. (1) It is in keeping with the spirit of 1 Cor 11 and explicitly with two of Paul’s arguments (nature, convention). If forced to make a choice, it is wiser to take a view that is in keeping with the spirit of the text rather than the letter. (2) The broader spirit of Christianity is clearly against symbols for symbols’ sake. The NT writers do not seem to push ritual and symbol, but reality and substance. (3) The reason, I suspect, that head covering was implemented in the early church was simply that it was an already established societal convention that could be ‘baptized,’ so to speak. That the symbol of head covering fit into Paul’s argument about the headship of God, Christ, and husband, is what seems to have suggested this particular symbol. But even if the symbol loses some of its symbolism, the point needs to remain the same. (That is, whatever symbol a woman is to wear should indicate her submission to her husband and/or [if not married] the male leadership of the church.⁸) (4) An analogy with the Lord’s Table might help. It is appropriate because there is much that is symbolic in the Eucharist and this celebration is also one of those traditions that Paul handed down (1 Cor 11:17ff.). The symbols of the wine and unleavened bread are taken directly from the Passover. In the first century the Passover involved the use of four mandatory cups of wine, lamb, bitter herbs, unleavened bread. The part of the meal that Jesus turned into the first Lord’s Supper was apparently the third cup of the Passover and the unleavened bread. The lack of leaven was an important symbol, for it represented Christ’s sinlessness. And, of course, real wine was used. Is it necessary for us today to use unleavened bread and real wine? Some churches make this a mandatory practice, others an optional one. Still others would be horrified if real wine were used. Few today have unleavened bread (saltine crackers do have some yeast in them). Should we pronounce an anathema on these folks because they have broken from the tradition--a tradition which has both historical and biblical antecedents? If the implementation of such an important tradition as the Lord’s Supper can be varied, then should not the much less important tradition of the specific role (and garb) of women be allowed some flexibility, too?

Second, if the actual symbol used is not the issue, but what it represents is, what symbol should we use today? There can be no universal answer, simply because the ‘meaningful symbol’ approach is a recognition that conventions change. If we were to canonize one symbol--especially one not mentioned in the Bible--then we would be in danger of elevating oral tradition to the level of Scripture and of externalizing and trivializing the gospel. Having said that, each church needs to wrestle with an appropriate symbol for the present time. Quite frankly, if you (and your church) think that what I’ve suggested in this paper has validity, then the leadership of the church should probably do some creative brain-storming. I would like very much to hear from you!

Still, some controls do exist. As much of the spirit and symbolism of 1 Cor 11 as can be conveyed ought to be. Some have suggested that a wedding ring would be an acceptable symbol. There are some good points to this. It is a symbol that is accepted in large segments of society. A woman would not feel self-conscious wearing a ring. It certainly shows her bond to her husband and therefore picks up the force of 1 Cor 11:9 (co-dependency!) well. However, there are problems with this symbol. The ring is insufficient for the following reasons: (1) using this as the symbol presupposes that only married women are in view; (2) it is not a symbol distinctive of women; married men would also wear such a ring; and (3) unlike a head covering, it is not a very visible symbol.

What other symbols are available? At the present time--and I emphasize the tentative nature of this position--I think the wearing of a modest dress is an appropriate symbol. It does not pick up every correspondence in the passage, but it does do justice to many. In particular--and this is most important--a woman who wears a provocative dress (too feminine) or who pushes the boundaries of propriety in the other direction (such as jeans, business suit⁹) is often not showing proper submission in her very attitude.¹⁰ The symbol thus corresponds to its theological reality very neatly.¹¹

I hope and pray that this paper is not too offensive to any who would read it. My concern at all times is first to be faithful to the Scriptures. And second, I wish at all times to be sensitive to real people with real needs. Some may object that this paper is not biblical enough; others may object that it is out of step with modern culture. If someone disagrees with my position, that is fine. But to convince me to change requires a refutation of the exegesis. I may well be wrong in my exegesis, but I will need to see it. As much as I sympathize with the feminist movement (and I sympathize with much in it), I cannot betray my conscience or my understanding of Scripture. I am open to other views on the text, but will not change simply because of ad hominem arguments. All believers need to be convinced of their views in light of Scripture; none should depart from what the Bible teaches simply because such views are not popular. The real danger, as I see it, is that many Christians simply ignore what this text says because any form of obedience to it is inconvenient.

---

¹ In addition to vv 2 and 16, there are several theological arguments within the passage that indicate the seriousness of the head covering for Paul. See discussion below.

² J. B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981) 170-71.

³ LSJ also gives as the only meaning “uncovered.”

⁴ We are assuming that a real head covering is taught, due to the considerations against the ‘long hair’ view mentioned earlier. At issue here, however, is the combination of real head covering and present-day applicability.

⁵ If I may, I would like to add a personal observation. Much of the feminist viewpoint in the evangelical church today is based on a simplistic view of the Trinity, rampant among evangelicals (largely because, I suspect, in the church’s reaction to the rise of the cults of the last century, part of its theological convictions were suppressed). Evangelicals strongly affirm the ontological equality of Son with Father. Yet it is difficult to find doctrinal statements—either in churches or in seminaries—in which the Son is said to be functionally subordinate to the Father. Yet John 14:28; Phil 2:6-11; 1 Cor 11:3; 15:28 all plainly teach the eternal subordination of the Son (John 14 and 1 Cor 11 speak of his present subordination; Phil 2 speaks of his subordination in eternity past; and 1 Cor 15 speaks of his subordination in eternity future). Since these same books strongly affirm the ontological equality of Son with Father, the subordination in view must be functional.

⁶ I am assuming that the restriction was for women when praying or prophesying, although some who hold this view would argue that the passage does not restrict it to this. See discussion earlier.

⁷ It must be kept in mind that a head covering is not the same as a hat. A hat’s function is to show off the beauty of the woman, much as beautiful hair does. A head covering, however, was intended to veil her glory.

⁸ We have not discussed at all whether single women or married women are in view in this text. That will have to be left for another occasion. Suffice it to say that γυνή should be taken as woman (as opposed to ‘wife’) unless there are sufficient contextual reasons to argue otherwise.

⁹ I do not mean that women may not wear jeans! I mean, rather, that in some parts of the country for a woman to wear jeans to the worship service is tantamount to disrespect to those in authority. In the northwest, however, jeans are almost the choice of the fashion-conscious, even when attending Sunday services. (My brother has his dress jeans and his casual jeans . . . ) In that region a different symbol may well be needed. If it is difficult to come up with a good symbol that women can accept, then they should be responsible and creative enough to come up with one. Certainly this issue is one that requires some fruitful dialogue between men and women. Whatever symbol is chosen, it ought not to be one that humiliates, but simply displays the proper submission.

¹⁰ Ironically, long hair today has a similar effect. Often women who wear extremely short hair today do so to be treated like a man. Thus, even though it is not the meaning of the passage, it is possible that some churches will elect long hair worn in a certain way to be their meaninful symbol. There are still problems with this, however. For example, the tension between vv 10 and 15 would thereby be erased. And the fact of long hair—or even various styles of long hair—do not always communicate a sense of submission. Further, women who wear shorter hair for a variety of reasons would thereby be ostracized and cut out of public ministry. But climate and age often dictate the length of a woman’s hair. Ironically, if long hair becomes the standard today, the younger, less mature women would be permitted to minister publicly more than the older, more mature women.

¹¹ At the same time, some may object to this because the symbol related to ‘head’ is entirely lost. But what head represents in the passage is authority. It is unwise to insist on one symbol because of its correspondence to another symbol, when in the process the real point gets lost in the shuffle. Such an insistence seems to smack of Pharisaism.

This essay is both a historical and expository treatment of Daniel 3.

The outline of this paper is as follows:

Introduction:

1. The Relation of Chapter 3 to Chapter 2
2. The Relation of Chapter 3 to Chapter 6

Exposition:

Act I: The Command to Worship the Golden Image (3:1-7)

Act II:              The Courage of Daniel’s Three Friends (3:8-18)

• The Accusation of the Chaldeans (3:8-12)
• The Response of the Jews (3:13-18)

Act III:              The Miraculous Deliverance (3:19-27)

• The Fire of the King’s Wrath (3:19-23)
• Deliverance through the Seven-Fold Tribulation (3:24-27)

Epilogue: The Acknowledgment by the King of the Most High God (3:28-30)

Introduction

Daniel chapter three does not contain a shred of prophecy. Since the book of Daniel is purportedly about prophecy, such a fact certainly gives one pause. Is this chapter all that significant? And if this chapter is not important--if it contributes nothing to this book (or, at least, nothing to the prophecies of this book)--then why did the author record the events here and why did this chapter slip into the canon of Holy Writ?

Of course, it could be argued that God put this chapter here because it would “preach.” It will certainly do that! The courage of Daniel’s three friends to face the worst that men could do because they knew their God was a sovereign God and a God of mercy and justice is almost without parallel. Their humbleness before YHWH in acknowledging his ability, without being so arrogant as to claim a knowledge of his decretive will for their lives, serves as a model prayer for all saints of all generations. Yes, this chapter will preach--and anyone with spiritual eyes can clearly see its value in the canon of the Old Testament. But the nagging question still will not go away; it is not so transparent as to why Daniel put this into his book.

Daniel was a very thoughtful composer. He exercised real genius in his literary art. And it seems that the focus of his entire book has to do with the future of the Gentile powers and of Israel. He spends quite a bit of time discussing how Gentile world leaders respond to the divine will. He does this both prophetically (cf., e.g., chapters 11-12) and historically (cf., e.g., chapters 4-5, etc.).

So the question that we must return to as we begin our look at chapter 3 is, How does this chapter function within the overall picture of the book? That is, How does it contribute either to prophecy or to the response to prophecy by some world leader? Or does it do this at all?

In order to answer these questions, we should really look at two things by way of background: (1) the relation of chapter 3 to chapter 2; and (2) the relation of chapter 3 to chapter 6 (since both of them are arranged in a chiastic order).

1. The Relation of Chapter 3 to Chapter 2

Most commentators do not make a connection between chapters 2 and 3. Yet, some reflection should suggest that Daniel is not attempting to write a complete biography of Nebuchadnezzar. Indeed, in all of Nebuchadnezzar’s long reign, Daniel selects only three events to tell about the king (one each in chapters 2, 3, and 4). Thus, since Daniel is highly selective in what he says about Nebuchadnezzar, we should give him the benefit of the doubt and allow his selection to make a contribution to his overall theme. In other words, we should see mostly clearly a connection between chapters 2 and 3 if there are any internal clues of such a connection.

A major clue immediately presents itself: in 3:1 Nebuchadnezzar builds an image of gold and in 2:38 Daniel describes the king himself as the head of gold of the image he saw in his dream. In other words, it seems transparent that Daniel is portraying chapter 3 as the king’s reaction to the prophecies of chapter two. Now the head of gold represented Nebuchadnezzar--and the head was the shortest/smallest part of the statue (assuming the statue was relatively realistic). Further, the chronological sequence that the statue represented moved from top to bottom, from head to toes. Therefore, the conclusion seem evident that Nebuchadnezzar built this statue of himself (not a statue of Marduk, as some have maintained), and he made it entirely out of gold¹--from head to toe--in defiance of Daniel’s God. He is saying by this statue, in effect, “I will reign forever! And you better bow down and acknowledge this or you will get fired!” In very graphic terms, then, Nebuchadnezzar was attempting to thwart the divine will.

In light of such a possibility, we would have no problem suggesting that this is a political statement, not a religious one--as many commentators have suggested. At the same time, the political statement is a religious one in that by this statement Nebuchadnezzar is declaring that he, not YHWH, is omnipotent! History will never get to the fifth kingdom unless it gets past the first kingdom. And Nebuchadnezzar wanted to stop the whole process before it began. Surely Marduk’s will could be thwarted; perhaps YHWH’s could, too. Nebuchadnezzar would soon learn otherwise.

It is a bit ironic that Nebuchadnezzar’s first recorded reaction after his initial showering of gifts and blessings on Daniel (chapter 2) was an act of defiance of what Daniel predicted. As deeply as he appreciated Daniel’s unraveling of the prophecy, he assumed that it was not set in stone and hence he attempted to unravel it, too!

2. The Relation of Chapter 3 to Chapter 6

In our approach to Daniel, we see chapters 2 through 7 as a literary unit. Not only is this evident linguistically (since these chapters alone comprise the Aramaic portion of Daniel), but it is evident stylistically, too. As we have suggested in an earlier essay, there seems to be a chiastic structure in these chapters--one evidently intended by Daniel. One of the positive results of seeing these chapters as comprising one grand chiasmus is that chapters 2 and 7 interpret each, chapters 3 and 6 interpret each other, and chapters 4 and 5 interpret each other. We will develop the specifics of such interpretations in due time.

Another point about chiasmus: normally, the second part of a particular chiasmus is expanded--i.e., it elaborates and ‘fills in’ the outline of the first part. Thus, chapter 7 would be an expansion of chapter 2. If we are charged with making the image of chapter 2 “walk on all fours,” Daniel should also be charged with doing the same thing--for he turns the image into beasts in chapter 7!

As a sidenote, what is most intriguing here is the fact that Nebuchadnezzar actually behaves like an animal in chapter 4. He wants to be more than the head of gold; he wants to be the whole statue! So, because of such arrogance, God levels him to the status of a donkey. This might be some kind of foreshadowing to the prophecy in chapter 7, but I have my doubts. (For one thing, Daniel makes the beast prediction during the days of Belshazzar, not the days of Nebuchadnezzar; as well, Nebuchadnezzar is pictured as a lion in chapter 7, not a mule.)

Back to the chiasmus: in chapter 3, Daniel’s three friends are tested by YHWH as to their loyalty to him in the face of the boast of a Gentile monarch’s sovereignty. They are found faithful to YHWH, the king’s actions are exposed as foolish at best and arrogant in the superlative degree at worst. YHWH delivers his people.

In chapter 6, Daniel himself is tested by YHWH as to his loyalty in the face of the boast of a Gentile king’s sovereignty. He is found faithful to YHWH, the king’s actions are exposed as foolish (though, in this case, the king was not angry at Daniel, but at his own stupidity . . . ). YHWH delivers his servant, Daniel.

It is probable that these chapters rise to a climax (in keeping with chiastic patterns) in that (1) in chapter 3, it is Daniel’s friends (he is not mentioned) who are tested, while in chapter 6, it is Daniel himself (his three friends are not mentioned after chapter 3); (2) there is progression from one king of one nation to a second king of another nation. There seems to be some implication in this that pagan world rulers will always have a tendency to be arrogant, in spite of the lessons they should have learned from history and prophecy. As well, these chapters vividly illustrate that God and God alone is sovereign, not only over Babylon but also over the succeeding kingdoms. Surely, he will be sovereign over the third and fourth kingdoms as well! (Thus, chapter 6 in particular would have given the Maccabean Jews great comfort--YHWH is still on the throne!)

We are dealing, then, in chapters 3 and 6, with the reaction of a Gentile monarch to the divine will and the response of the faithful Jews to YHWH while they are caught in a compromising situation. It is interesting to note that although the Jews remained loyal to YHWH during the reign of the third world empire, they faltered miserably in the fourth. Humanly speaking, that which put our Lord on the cross was, in part, the betrayal of his own people: “We have no king but Caesar!” It is not wonder that he wept as he entered Jerusalem on Palm Monday, for the Jews had not learned the lessons from Daniel.

Exposition

Act I: The Command to Worship the Golden Image (3:1-7)

Preliminary Considerations: When Did This Happen? Why Is Daniel Not Mentioned?

In this opening paragraph, the stage is set for the drama of the whole chapter. As we have noted, there seems to be an obvious connection between chapters 2 and 3. However, there may be more to it than that: the question arises as to when this event took place.

In dating the events of chapter 3, we must first note that they occurred after the completion of the events of chapter 2. The statements in 3:12 and 3:30 seem to imply that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego were already in a position of authority in the kingdom and therefore chapter 3 is subsequent to chapter 2. (On the surface, one might expect such to the be case, but chapter 2 actually records events that took place before all that was recorded in chapter 1 took place.)

Secondly, the events of chapter 3 took place before the events of chapter 4 (as we hope to demonstrate in our exposition of that chapter).

However, once the broad terminus a quo and terminus ad quem are established for chapter 3, we are hard-pressed to determine its date any more precisely. Some, such as Walvoord, suggest that the events described here took place twenty years or so after the events of chapter 2 (see his commentary on Daniel, 80). He follows the LXX/Theodotion on this chapter which connect these events “with the destruction of Jerusalem, which, according to 2 Kings 25:8-10 and Jeremiah 52:12, places this event in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar” (ibid.). Walvoord, of course, is not saying that the LXX’s reading is original, but he does see it going back to an accurate historical tradition. It would be most appropriate if this date were true, because it would suggest that Nebuchadnezzar erected his statue once he thought the God of Israel was defeated! (By the way, the dream of chapter 2 may have been part of the impetus for Nebuchadnezzar to make more raids on Jerusalem after 605 BCE; he was simply trying to thwart the divine will. In other words, he knew that Daniel’s God was big enough to reveal and interpret eschatological dreams, but he thought YHWH was not big enough to restrain a monarch as magnificent as Nebuchadnezzar.)

Leon Wood has another view: “This thinking [i.e., that the LXX reflects an accurate tradition] assigns too much importance to the fall of Jerusalem, however, for many other great cities were also taken by the great king” (Daniel, 78). Wood suggests that two or three years after the events of chapter 2 would be an appropriate time (ibid., 79). However, if the point of the statue-erection in chapter 3 is a polemic against the dream of chapter 2, then the taking of Jerusalem would be the most appropriate time to make such a statue, because it would be directly against the God who revealed the contents and interpretation of the dream. Although there would be other great cities conquered, there would not be other great gods--for no other god revealed the dream or its interpretation.

Nevertheless, there is a third possibility. In an article in AUSS the author attempts to coordinate the events of this chapter with extra-biblical historical records. (See William H. Shea, “Daniel 3: Extra-Biblical Texts and the Convocation on the Plain of Dura,” AUSS 20:1 [Spring, 1982] 29-52.) Shea looks at a clay prism which is from the time of Nebuchadnezzar. It has five columns and gives the names of five classes of leaders in Babylon. Over fifty names are actually mentioned. It is a memento/record of some sort of ceremony under the direction and rule of Nebuchadnezzar. What is intriguing about this list is that actual names are given, including Nebuzaradan (at the head of the list and mentioned in 2 Kings 25:8-10 and Jer 39:13). He is noted here as the one who burned Jerusalem and who excluded Jeremiah from being deported (p. 44). Also, there is Neriglissar, who would later become a king in Babylon! But most interesting are the names Hanunu, Ardi-Nabu, and Musallim-Marduk. Through a rather ingenius look at cognates, polemic reasons, etc., Shea puts forth an excellent case for the possibility that these names refer to the three friends of Daniel: Hanunu = Hananiah (= Shadrach), Ardi-Nabu = Abed-nego, and Musallim = Meshach.

Shea adds other evidence and suggests, on the basis of several strands of data, that (1) the events of Daniel 3 are the same as recorded by this Babylonian clay prism; and (2) these events took place somewhere “during the interval between the spring of 594 and the summer of 593 B.C.” (p. 51). There had been a revolt in the early part of 594 in Babylon itself, and Nebuchadnezzar had to kill even some of his own soldiers in purging the city. Then, he went west to collect tribute from his vassals and in the process reaffirmed his sovereignty over all he surveyed.

If Shea’s reconstruction is correct, then the reason for the events of chapter 3 is for Nebuchadnezzar to be reassured of the loyalty of his leaders and vassals. It is indeed possible that he was feeling pretty good about squelching any rebellion: he had captured the leader of the rebels with his own hands, according to one Babylonian text! Consequently, he would not only feel somewhat invincible at this point but would also want to make sure everyone in his kingdom knew it and agreed! Therefore, even though this would have occurred eight years before the fall of Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar would have reason enough to believe that the prophecy/dream of chapter 2 could be circumvented by his own cunning and by a demand of abject obedience to him by all his leaders. The fact that Daniel’s three friends could not bow down before the image, then, may have been a statement to the effect that YHWH was still on the throne and that his prophecies would come true! No human king could alter the plan of God!

Finally, what is somewhat puzzling to many commentators is the fact that Daniel’s name is not mentioned along with his friends. Walvoord suggests (p. 85):

It is useless to speculate how this related to Daniel himself. [But then he proceeds to speculate!] Either Daniel considered this a political act which did not violate his conscience, or Daniel did not worship and his high office prevented his enemies from accusing him, or more probably, Daniel for some reason was absent.

Even apart from the information given to us by Shea, we would still want to reject the first option because this political act was also a religious act--designed as a polemic against the God of Judah and Israel. But now, in light of Shea’s findings, since neither the name Daniel or Belteshazzar was found on the clay prism, it seems that we can rule out the first two possibilities. Daniel was apparently absent during the ceremony. We could speculate as to why he was absent (e.g., is it not possible that Nebuchadnezzar sent him out of the country while he was planning this little shindig, because he knew that Daniel would raise a stink about its implications, possibly even calling on YHWH to get to the “body” of the statue of chapter 2?), but we must refrain from speculation because it is useless!

3:1 Critics have pointed out two problems with the accuracy of verse 1 of chapter 3: (1) the dimensions (60 cubits by 6 cubits) are hardly the shape of a man; and (2) this much gold is a bit unbelievable, even given the fact that Babylon was not too bad off financially. In answer to this, other scholars have argued, first, that:

The image may have had a high base, taking up to a third or more of the height. Also, the image may intentionally have been made somewhat grotesque, for much of Babylonian sculpture was so characterized. In any case, the oddity of the numbers does not argue for the unreliability of the account, for no writer, whether contemporary or of a later date (as critics hold), would have had any reason to use odd figures unless they were accurate [Wood, 80].

We might further add that a large brick square with the dimensions of forty-five feet square and twenty feet high has been found in one of the locations alleged to be the ancient Dura. The archeologist Julius Oppert found this platform and affirmed his conviction that this was the pedestal for the statue, a view also shared by Montgomery (cf. J. Oppert, Expedition scientifique en Mesopotamie. vol 1, pp. 238ff., and Montgomery, Daniel, 197). If this was the platform for the statue, then the statue itself would have the proportions of 70 feet tall by 18 feet wide.

Second, With reference to the gold in the image, John Whitcomb made the interesting suggestion that:

The image was not made of solid gold, but rather was gold-plated. If it were solid, it would have contained 5,467 cubic feet of gold [assuming that it was not on a pedestal, I presume]; but all the gold produced in the past half-millennium (1493-1955), from the vast hordes of Mexico and Peru, California, Alaska, Australia, and South Africa, would bulk no larger than a fifty-foot cube (125,000 cubic feet), worth sixty billion dollars [at $35 an ounce?] (cf. Life Nature Series: The Earth, p. 96). This is not deceptive language, for the Old Testament speaks of “golden” items which were, in reality, gold-plated (cf. Exod. 39:38 with 37:25-26; cf. also Isa. 40:19; 41:7; Jer. 10:3-9).

3:2-3 On vv 2-3, there are again some critical problems, but problems which cut both ways. First of all, some of the officials’ names are Persian loan words, purportedly confirming the view that this book was written after Persia had come into power. Altogether, there are nineteen Persian loan words in Daniel (cf. Kenneth Kitchen, “The Aramaic of Daniel,” in Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, edited by D. J. Wiseman, p. 35). Kitchen argues that these Persian loan words are consistent with the earlier date of Daniel (6th century BCE) rather than with the later date. He points out, for instance, that “Words must be weighed, not merely counted” (ibid., 40). In other words, the mere existence of Persian loan words does not argue for a later date. In weighing the evidence presented by these words, he argues that (1) “the impact of Old Persian upon Imperial Aramaic was considerable. The Persian kings appointed Person and Median officials to govern their empire, and Aramaic was the means of communication between these and the polyglot nations so ruled. In the administrative sphere, the impact was intense” (p. 40). Walvoord suggests: “The speculation as to why Persian terms should be used is much ado about nothing. It would be natural for Daniel, who may have written or at least edited this passage after the Persian government had come to power, to bring the various offices up-to-date by using current expressions” (p. 82). Back to Kitchen: (2) “The almost unconscious assumption that Persian words would take time to penetrate into Aramaic (i.e., well after 539 BC) is erroneous” (p. 41). (3) “[T]he Persian words in Daniel are specifically Old Persian words. The recognized divisions of Persian language-history within Iranian are: Old down to c. 300 BC, Middle observable during c. 300 BC to c. AD 900, and New from c. AD 900 to the present” (p. 43). This, too, then argues against a second century BCE date.

A second problem in this verse again deals with these officials’ names: the fact is that the LXX renderings are “hopelessly mere guesswork” (Waltke’s article, p. 324). But this is a problem for one who wishes to date the book of Daniel in the second century BCE, not for the one who sees the book written substantially earlier. Kitchen points out the significance of this fact (p. 43):

If the first important Greek translation of Daniel was made sometime within c. 100 BC–AD 100, roughly speaking, and the translator could not (or took no trouble to) reproduce the proper meanings of these terms, then one conclusion imposes itself: their meaning was already lost and forgotten (or, at the least, drastically changed) long before he set to work. Now if Daniel (in particular, the Aramaic chapters 2-7) was wholly a product of c. 165 BC, then just a century or so in a continuous tradition is surely embarrasingly inadequate as a sufficient interval for that loss (or change) of meaning to occur, by Near Eastern standards.

Thus, a certain bias against the possibility of real prophecy seems to have been exposed by this datum: the evidence (when weighed, not merely counted) points in the direction of a genuine work of the sixth century BCE. (Along these lines, what might be significant is the fact that Daniel lists seven categories of officials, while the clay prism examined by Shea lists only five. In keeping with the Persian terms here, it seems antecedently possible that Daniel was even following their groups. In other words, while the Persian empire had seven categories, the Babylonian had five--thus, Shea’s identification of the two events is not in jeopardy on this account.)

3:5 In v 5, we again see some loan words. This time, the words are from Greek. The contention of ‘late-daters’ in this instance is more weighty because Daniel did not live during the reign of the Greek empire. Yamauchi has done some of the best synthesis here (though he bases much of his discussion on the work of Coxon and Kutscher, not to mention Kitchen). Almost the entirety of Yamauchi’s discussion is quoted here, for the problem of Greek loan words is usually considered the trump card for a late date of Daniel [Edwin M. Yamauchi, “The Archaeological Background of Daniel,” BSac 137 (1980) 11-12]:

As expressed long ago in S. R. Driver’s classic statement, the Greek loanwords in the Aramaic of Daniel have been regarded as objective proof for the late date of Daniel. As restated by Coxon [Peter W. Coxon, “Greek Loan-Words and the Alleged Greek Loan Word Translations in the Book of Daniel, Glascow University Oriental Society Transactions 25 (1973-74) 24], “Of all the linguistic arguments which have been used in the debate concerning the date of the composition of the book, the Greek loans seem to provide the strongest evvidence in favour of the second century B.C.” Though Hartman and DiLella list Kitchen’s study [same study as mentioned above, vv 2-3] which demonstrates otherwise, they reiterate the standard critical position: “The Greek names for the musical instruments in 3:5 probably do not antedate the reign of Alexander the Great (336-323 B.C.).”

The three Greek words in Daniel 3:5 are all musical terms (variant spellings are found in other verses):

Aramaic		Greek
srtyq	qayteros	κίθαρις	kitharis
nyrtnsp	pesanterîn	ψαλτήριον	psalterion
hynpmws	sumponeyâ	συμφωνία	sumphonia

The first instrument was a kind of lyre. As to the specific Greek word which was borrowed, Coxon observes that its spelling indicates that the loan was adopted in the pre-Hellenistic period:

The fact that the Ionic form kitharis found its way into the list in Dan. 3 and not the Attic kithara is a striking one, especially in view of the consistent use of kithara in Greek material of the post-Alexander period. Heirs of Attic literary tradition, the Septuagint, the New Testament and patristic sources alike know only kithara. One might suppose that the kitharis-form stems from Asia Minor and/or the Greek islands and that it was absorbed by Official Aramaic as a result of cultural and linguistic contacts at a period much earlier than the second century B.C. [ibid., p. 31]

Though the Greek psalterion was a harplike instrument, Sendry [Alfred Sendry, Music in Ancient Israel, p. 297] suggests that Daniel’s pesanterîn was more akin to a dulcimer. He further suggests that it had been one of a number of musical instruments originally imported from the east, improved by the Greeks, and re-exported to the east.

It is altogether surprising that the Anchor Bible commentary reverts to the discredited view of sumponeyâ as a “bagpipe” in the light of clear evidence that this was a very late sense of the word. The earliest meaning of the Greek word sumphonia was “sounding together,” that is, the simultaneous playing of instruments or voices producing a concord. Jerome, commenting on Luke 15:25 where the word occurs, noted: “The sumphonia is not a kind of instrument, as some Latin writers think, but it means concordant harmony. It is expressed in Latin by consonantia.” Coxon concludes as follows [p. 36]:

We have tried to show that the use of sumphonia in Dan. 3 accords with its older meaning and not, as in the later classical sources, with an individual musical instrument. But since the traditional meaning of “harmony, concord of sound” is also found late (Polybius, Athenaeus, etc.) the classical evidence in so far as it affects Dan. 3 may be pronounced neutral.

Rowley in his review of Kitchen’s work still maintained that the evidence of these particular Greek words was proof of the late date of Daniel’s Aramaic. Kutscher’s appraisal of this argument is worth quoting at length [E. Y. Kutscher, “Aramaic,” Current Trends in Linguistics VI, ed. T. A. Sebeck, pp. 401-402].

Rowley’s argument that the Greek loans ψαλτήριον and συμφωνία as names for musical instruments occur in Greek several hundred years after the suggested date of Daniel also does not sound convincing. After all, if we assume Greek influence prior to Alexander, it is not the Attic dialect, or other dialects of Greece, that must be taken into consideration as the place of origin of these loans, but rather dialects of Asia Minor and/or those of the Greek isles. What do we know about the Greek of Asia Minor and of the Greek isles during the period in question? To the best of my knowledge, very little . . . .

The fact that the field of music is the only one where Greek influence has come to light, calls to mind Otto Jespersen’s words . . . : “If all other sources of information were closed to us except such loan-words in our . . . North-European languages as piano, soprano, opera, libretto, tempo, adagio, etc., we should still have no hesitation in drawing the conclusion that Italian music has played a great role all over Europe.” . . . Greek musicians might have been dominant enough to make their impact felt in those (Near Eastern) languages, as the Italian musicians did in English.

As this writer has shown elsewhere [Yamauchi, Greece and Babylon, pp. 19-24; and “The Greek Words in Daniel in the Light of Greek Influence in the Near East,” in New Perspectives on the Old Testament, ed. J. Barton Payne, pp. 176-77], the exchange of musicians and their musical instruments played a prominent role at royal courts from time immemorial.

Two final points on the Greek loan words: (1) Montgomery himself recognized that the late-date argument was not airtight: “The rebuttal of this evidence for a late date lies in stressing the potentialities of Greek influence in the Orient from the sixth century and onward” (p. 22). And Yamauchi has provided just such evidence. (2) In his classic work, Greece and Babylon, Yamauchi concluded this portion of his study with the comment, “The only element of surprise to this writer is that there are not more Greek words in such documents” (p. 94). Thus, the earlier date of Daniel seems to withstand the most rigorous test put forth. Indeed, it not only stands the test, but the fact that these Greek loan words can all be seen to antedate the Attic dialectal influence seems to indicate that the Greek of Daniel may well be quite early.

3:6 In v 6 we read of the decreed punishment to be doled out on the one who does not fall down and worship the image: a fiery furnace! Baldwin points out concerning this furnace (Joyce Baldwin, Daniel, 103, n. 3):

t is difficult to envisage what the furnace is likely to have looked like, for, despite excavations, proper drawings and dimensions are rarely available. There is, however, a significant diagram in R. J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology, VI, 1958, p. 67, representing an ancient Mesopotamian pottery-kiln of Nippur, c. 2000 BC. It resembles a railway tunnel blocked at one end but with an entrance at the other. Uprights at frequent intervals support the dome and serve as ventilation shafts also. Charcoal provides the heat, and it is estimated that the temperature would have been 900o–1000o C. the suggestion that the furnace was an open surface pool of gas or oil set alight, such as may be seen today in the Near East, e.g. at Kirkuk, does not satisfy the requirements of the text.

One final note on 3:1-7: As preposterous as it may seem that Nebuchadnezzar would set up this image for political reasons, in light of the probability that, in chapter 2, the value of each portion of the statue was due to its correspondence to an absolute sovereign monarchy, we can certainly see this as very likely. Such an event occurred in the twentieth century, which might afford a nice analogy (Baldwin, 99, n. 1):

In the recent history of Ghana the President allowed a slightly more than life-size statue of himself to be erected in front of Parliament House, Accra. He ‘could tolerate no disunity in Ghana, which he shaped into a monolithic republic under the complete control of his party and dominated by his own personality as President (1960)’ (J. D. Fage, A Short History of Africa . . . pp. 251ff.). An inscription on the side bore the words, ‘Seek ye first the political kingdom and all other things shall be added unto you.’ The statue was religiously controversial from the beginning and was destroyed after the bloodless coup of 1966.

Act II:              The Courage of Daniel’s Three Friends (3:8-18)

Probably the first thing that strikes us about this paragraph is that Daniel is not mentioned. The Chaldeans brought charges against the Jews, but Daniel is not among them. As we concluded earlier, following Shea, it is likely that Daniel was out of the capital at the time of this convocation. Indeed, it is possible that Nebuchadnezzar had intentionally sent him away because he knew that Daniel would see the implications of such an act and might call on YHWH to deal swiftly with this king. But the suggestion by Walvoord (though he does not prefer this view) that Daniel did not have scruples about bowing down before this image is unsatisfactory because (1) he, too, would see that the political act had religious ramifications; (2) his name was not present at the ceremony, and (3) it seems rather doubtful that Daniel would devote an entire chapter to the bravery of his companions if he did not share their convictions.

The Accusation of the Chaldeans (3:8-12)

3:8 In v 8 we read that the Chaldeans ‘brought charges’ against, or ‘maliciously slandered’ the Jews. Such is a weak rendering of the Aramaic word קרציהונ (qarseyhôn). Literally it means “eat the pieces of flesh torn off from someone’s body” (Koehler-Baumgartner, p. 1121). Obviously, the literal rendering is too strong here, but Daniel seems to have chosen it to indicate the strong animosity of the Chaldeans for the Jews. One could wonder if this were intended to be some sort of proleptic pun, for the punishment the Jews faced was that they were to be barbecued!

3:12 In v 12 we notice that the charge of the Chaldeans was that these Jews “do not serve your gods or worship the golden image.” This text tends to confirm both that the image is a political matter more than religious and that it is a statue of Nebuchadnezzar because (1) there is a distinction between the gods and the statue (note that two different verbs are used and that if the charge were that they were not worshipping this statue as a god, the accusation would probably have put ‘gods’ in the singular, thus equating the two--”they do not serve your god, i.e., they do not worship the golden image”), and (2) the second verb (סגדינ) is really a softer term (in spite of the translation of the NASB), for it can be used of non-deity (cf. Dan 2:46 where Nebuchadnezzar ‘does homage’ to Daniel). Finally, we might add that the reason the Chaldeans bring up the matter of worshiping the gods is not due to anything transparent in the text. But on our reconstruction of the setting, it seems most plausible that the reason the gods are mentioned is that Nebuchadnezzar felt that his gods had overcome YHWH in that they were able to thwart his will as seen in the prophecy of chapter 2. Thus, anyone who did not acknowledge that the gods had blessed Nebuchadnezzar was affirming that Daniel’s prophecy might still come true.

(It may be significant that neither Daniel nor his friends ever say to Nebuchadnezzar, “O king, live forever!” because such might sound like a denial of the prophetic fulfillment. Daniel does, of course, say this to Darius [6:21], but it seems that this is an appropriate response of wish [in both places the verb is a pe’al imperative from חיה, which has the force of a wish, both in Aramaic and in Hebrew (see Alger Johns, A Short Grammar of Biblical Aramaic, p. 25; and GKC, pp. 321-24)]. In 3:9 the Chaldeans see this as an obtainable wish, while in 6:21 Daniel is certainly being courteous, but the force of the imperative is probably, “If only you could!”)

The Response of the Jews (3:13-18)

3:15 In v 15 Nebuchadnezzar seems to be making a direct challenge to YHWH to deliver the three Jews out of his hands. Such a bold statement about his own sovereignty strongly suggests that he had believed himself to be greater than even YHWH (“what god is there who can deliver you out of my hands?”). Of course, this statement is in line with our hypothesis about the nature and purpose of the image and Daniel’s recording of these events. (Incidentally, Nebuchadnezzar’s confession that only One is sovereign in chapter 4 again seems to be connected with the events of chapter 3--Daniel is clearly demonstrating the cause-and-effect relationship of the boasting of one who claims to be greater than YHWH and how he is reduced, not only to less than a god, but to less than a man!)

3:16-18 In vv 16-18 we see the proper response to a crisis by these three faithful men. They reiterate their faith in YHWH, claiming his ability to deliver them from Nebuchadnezzar, though denying a knowledge of his will. Such, of course, is the attitude all believers should have about personal crises. We simply do not know if God will heal a certain person or bring someone to salvation. But we do know that he is able! By way of contrast, in chapter 2, Daniel claimed to be able to interpret the dream even before YHWH had given him the interpretation. Although on the surface it seems that the faith of Daniel’s friends was not as great as his, it is more likely that Daniel is both highlighting their faith (and faithfulness) in this chapter and affirming that his prophetic gifts were greater than those of his friends. It is significant, then, that Daniel does not portray all faithful believers as having the same supernatural gifts. Such gifts are restricted to a few, though the lack of such gifts should not be seen as a lack in one’s relationship to the Lord. These principles are repeated in the New Testament (cf. especially 1 Cor 13:1-3), and help to give an answer to those Christians who would question the quality of one’s faith if it lacks the supernatural luster of someone else’s faith.

Act III: The Miraculous Deliverance (3:19-27)

The Fire of the King’s Wrath (3:19-23)

3:19 In v 19 we again see evidence of a sixth century BCE date for Daniel. As Baldwin has pointed out (p. 105):

The standard English translations of the various garments named conjure up the picture of three Elizabethan courtiers. Incongruous as this is, the ancient translators were equally puzzled, as the variety of interpretations proves. This points to some long lapse of time between the date of the original, from which the translators were working, and their own day.

In a footnote to this paragraph, she adds the inadvertent conclusion of Montgomery: “Since for each of these three terms every category of gear for head, body and legs has been adduced . . . , the possible permutations are many” (p. 211). The fact that even today we are confused about the garments mentioned here adds something of an O’Henry twist to the date debate: If we ourselves cannot determine with certainty the meaning of certain Aramaic words, how are we able to determine with certainty the date of this book from linguistic considerations?

3:23 One final note of an analytical nature on chapter 3: In v 23 the LXX adds the prayer of Azariah and the song of the three youths. Such an apocryphal addition is certainly not a part of the original text, for, in the words of Baldwin, “Evidence from Qumran has shown conclusively that these additions were not part of the original” (p. 106). Now, the earlier such material was added to Daniel, the more we would expect it to have gotten into various MSS. But if the LXX was translated within 100 years of the writing of Daniel (as late-daters claim), then why didn’t such a story make it into the Qumran MSS? The Qumran MSS apparently go back to a Vorlage behind the time when the LXX was done. In a late-date scheme, the gaps keep on shrinking, eventually getting to the point of being highly improbable reconstructions. The evidence is more easily reconcilable with a 6th century BCE date for Daniel which circulated and was transmitted without the prayer of Azariah for several centuries.

Deliverance through the Seven-Fold Tribulation (3:24-27)

No specific comments. Read the text!

Epilogue: The Acknowledgment by the King of the Most High God (3:28-30)

Chapter 3 concludes much as chapter 2 did: Nebuchadnezzar is again brought to his senses (but still not permanently) and recognizes that YHWH is the sovereign of the universe. He blesses the God of Israel and pronounces a curse on anyone who does not recognize this ‘Most High God’ (a phrase which is possibly still indicative of polytheism for Nebuchadnezzar). The curse is the same one declared against his magicians in 2:5 if they did not reveal his dream: “they shall be torn limb to limb and their houses shall be reduced to a dung hill.” By way of application, I suppose we need to be cautioned that this kind of altar call is usually only effective if one is an absolute monarch!

---

¹ Or gold-plated, as we will see later. The point here is that he does not mix other elements with the gold, such as silver or iron.

This essay is a position paper arguing that deacons should be a part of the leadership of a mature or large church. It has three parts: inductive biblical study, conclusions from the biblical investigation, and practical suggestions for today's church.

I. Inductive Biblical Study

The pattern of church leadership that the New Testament follows finds its seeds in the earliest period. In Acts 6:1-6 we read of the frustration of some members of the early church for not having their needs attended to. Because the church had grown so large, the twelve apostles were not able to handle all the physical needs of the body and proclaim the word. They knew that if they neglected the ministry of the word the church would suffer: "It is not right for us to give up preaching the word of God to serve tables" (v 2). They asked the congregation to choose seven men—men of good reputation and sound character—to perform this task of serving tables. The verb "serve" in v 2 is διακονέω (diakoneo). The cognate noun is διάκονος (diakonos), from which we get "deacon" (cf. 1 Tim 3:8). This word διάκονος does not always have such a technical nuance in the NT. It simply means "servant" in many passages (e.g., Matt 20:26; 22:13; John 2:5; Rom 13:4), "minister" in others (e.g., 2 Cor 3:6; Eph 3:7; Col 1:25).

The question then arises: How should we relate Acts 6 to the doctrine of ecclesiology and to a proper understanding of church leadership? Three options present themselves: Acts 6 gives an essential pattern of church leadership, a valid option of church leadership, or an incidental description that is perhaps irrelevant for church leadership. Further, a combination of these three may be in place (e.g., the number seven seems to be incidental, while the character qualifications of these servants seems to be essential).

Exegetes are divided on this issue, but many see some sort of non-binding pattern in Acts 6. Two things are key in determining this: Luke's literary purpose in Acts and parallels with later NT writings. Luke describes many things that are almost certainly not valid in the ongoing ministry of the church (e.g., the initial communism of the church, Spirit-baptism after salvation). Thus one must be careful to distinguish those things that seem to have abiding significance from those that do not. One way to get a clue is to look at Paul's letters. After all, Luke was one of Paul's traveling companions. When we see parallels in Paul's letters to what takes place in Acts, there may be a connection. Thus, the fact that deacons in 1 Tim 3:8-13 are to be godly men apparently in charge of the physical and financial well-being of the church¹ is a strong indicator that the pattern set forth in Acts 6 is no accident. As George Knight points out, "The linguistic connections with those who are in 1 Tim. 3:8-13 described with the noun διάκονοι and the verb διακονεῖν (used in a technical sense) is striking and is in accord with the division of labor in conceptual terms in Acts 6."²

We will develop this point later, for three key issues are still at stake: Is it significant that the church only added deacons once it reached a certain size? Is it significant that the congregation voted on who should serve the tables? Is it significant that only men were chosen in Acts 6?³

The second passage of note is Phil 1:1. Paul addresses the saints at Philippi "together with the bishops and deacons." Thus, a twofold division of leadership is clearly seen. (Incidentally, bishops were the same thing as elders.⁴) The church at Philippi was probably not very large, though it was well-established. Paul established the church on his second missionary journey. The Jewish element in the city was small enough that no synagogue was found. But Paul found some women who were responsive to the gospel. The church began. By the time he wrote the letter to the Philippians, the church was already ten years old.

The third significant passage is 1 Tim 3:8-13. The third chapter of 1 Timothy addresses two categories of leaders in the church, bishops (elders) and deacons. We have already noted the connection between this text and Acts 6. Suffice it to say here that deacons were assumed to be part of the leadership of the church at Ephesus.

Knight concludes: "These three passages show, then, a twofold division of labor in early, middle and later time periods in the NT church, in key cities in three various geographical areas (Palestine, Greece, and Asia Minor), and in both Jewish and Greco-Roman settings."⁵

The problem is that few other places seem to speak about deacons. The following is an exhaustive list of all potential passages.

Rom 16:1	"Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae" (NRSV). It is of course possible that Phoebe was a servant in the church, a minister of sorts. Whether the term is meant to be taken technically is difficult to tell.
Eph 6:21	"Tychicus . . . is a dear brother and faithful deacon in the Lord." Again, it is probable that διάκονος simply means "servant" or "minister."
Col 1:7	"Epaphras . . . is a faithful deacon of Christ on your behalf." The same problem occurs. This most likely refers to Epaphras as a minister, not a deacon.
Col 4:7	"Tychicus . . . is a beloved brother, a faithful deacon, and a fellow-slave in the Lord." See discussion at Eph 6:21.

Of these four passages that speak of three individuals (Phoebe, Epaphras, Tychicus), the best candidate for the meaning "deacon" is Rom 16:1, for this is the only text in which the term is related specifically to a church. However, the fact that both Acts 6 and 1 Tim 3 speak of the deacons as adult males suggests that the office was limited to the men.⁶ It is best to discuss this issue in the larger context of the role of women in the church.

The lack of mention of deacons in NT passages where elders or bishops are mentioned should also be noted. Acts 14:23, for example, records Paul and Barnabas appointing elders in newly-established churches, but not deacons. Other passages discuss the leadership of the church, though arguably the elders are the only ones explicitly mentioned because the issues involved are those that elders rather than deacons would decide on (e.g., Acts 11:30; 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18; Jas 5:14; 1 Pet 5:1, 5). It is interesting that 1 Tim 5:17, 19 fits this pattern. In the same book the qualifications for elders (bishops) and deacons are mentioned, but two chapters later only elders are discussed. If chapter three were missing from our Bibles, what kinds of conclusions would we make from their lack of mention in chapter five?

The most instructive text along these lines is Titus 1:5. Paul instructs Titus to appoint elders in every town. The qualifications list in Titus 1:6-9 parallels 1 Tim 3:1-7. But there is no corresponding list for deacons. Why? The church on Crete was relatively young, while Ephesus had a long history and had been, in fact, Paul's base of operations for nearly three years. It seems likely that for new churches only elders were needed. As a church grew, deacons would be added to the leadership so that the elders could devote themselves more to prayer and teaching. This follows the pattern of Acts 6.

Finally, it should be noted that other terms for church leaders are sometimes used in the NT. In 1 Thess 5:12 we read of "those who labor among you and have charge over you in the Lord." No other description is given of these leaders. Paul had spent apparently only a few weeks in Thessalonica (cf. Acts 17:1-10), yet appointed leaders before departing. Most likely only elders are in view here. Hebrews 13:7 says, "Remember your leaders, those who spoke the word of God to you." Again, elders seem to be in view here.⁷

II. Conclusions from the Biblical Study

A. First, it is evident that the early church did not always have deacons. Acts 6:1-6 and Titus 1:5 show this, as do apparently Acts 14:23 and 1 Thess 5:12.

B. It is also evident that deacons were added when the need was felt. That need was in relation to the duties of the elders. When they got detoured from a ministry of prayer and the word, the diaconate was created.

C. There seems to have been a variety of means by which deacons were put in place. In Acts 6, they were elected by the congregation. (Yet even here, the apostles first suggested and permitted such a congregational vote.) But in 1 Tim 3, it is likely that Timothy himself appointed them. This is due to the fact that (1) the parallel in Titus 1:5 involves the appointing of elders by Titus, (2) nowhere do we read of elders being elected (cf., e.g., Acts 14:23), and (3) there is no differentiation between deacons and elders in 1 Tim 3 in terms of how they get into office. In the least, Acts 6 is not a sufficient basis to argue that deacons must always be elected by the congregation.

III. Practical Suggestions for Today's Church

The results of this study can be applied to today's church in terms of flexibility and purpose. There should be flexibility in whether to have deacons or not; there should also be flexibility in the means of selection. What guides the former is the task of the elders: if they get distracted from devoting themselves to prayer and the word, they need deacons. What guides the latter is the preference of each individual church.

As a postscript, the addition of deacons to a church really shows how vital is the ministry of prayer and the word among the elders (not just the pastor). Too many elder boards deal with petty issues that shackle them, hindering them from their primary duty. Indeed, too many elders, though godly, are really not "able to teach" (1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:9; cf. Heb 13:7).

---

¹ Significant along these lines is F. F. Bruce's suggestion that in Acts 6:2, the act of "serving tables" was most likely not that of food-distribution, but of money-disbursement. At the same time, there are hints that deacons could well be involved in more than merely the distribution of funds. Philip, one of the original seven in Acts 6, was a mighty preacher.

² G. W. Knight III, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (New International Greek New Testament; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992) 175.

³ The apostles specifically asked that seven men be picked. The Greek word used, ἀνήρ, means an adult male.

⁴ Cf. Titus 1:5, 7; Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Tim 3:1 and 5:17.

⁵Ibid.

⁶ Although 1 Tim 3:11 could possibly be interpreted to mean "deaconess," rather than wife. Again, this issue should be dealt with under the topic of the role of women in the church.

⁷ Some see the gift of helps in 1 Cor 12:28 as an oblique reference to the office of deacon (so Knight, 176). This fits nicely with the fact that immediately following this gift is that of administration or leadership. Further, when the rhetorical questions occur in vv 29-30 ("Are all apostles?" etc.) the only gifts not mentioned are helps and administration. If these are offices rather than gifts, such a lacuna is easily explained. (See H. W. Beyer, s.v. κυβερνήσις, in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 3.1036). However, since the passage is speaking of spiritual gifts rather that merely offices per se, this is doubtful. Anyone could have the gift of helps, whether a deacon or not. Further, the lacuna can be explained in another way: verse 30 adds the gift of interpretation, not originally in the list. This shows that Paul is most likely not trying to be exhaustive in either set.

"I'm so glad that God chose me before the foundation of the world, because he never would have chosen me after I was born!" Charles Haddon Spurgeon

The following is a brief discussion of what I understand the biblical doctrine of election to mean.

(1) Election does not mean that God merely knew who would believe and on that basis elected them. D. L. Moody thought that election meant this: "God chose me for himself, but the devil chose me for himself. My choice is the tie-breaker."

This really would not be election or "choice." God would not be choosing us; rather, we would be choosing him and he would simply know about it. (Further, the devil, a creature, would be put on a plane equal to God.) The consistent testimony of scripture is that God is the one doing the choosing, not us. Cf. Romans 9:6-21; Ephesians 1:4; 1 Thessalonians 1:4.

(2) Election does not obliterate human responsibility. Each person is held responsible before Almighty God as to what they will do with his Son. "There are unsaved people alive today, who, though elect, are now lost and will not be saved until they believe."¹ Cf. Ephesians 2:3.

(3) Election is necessary because we are totally depraved sinners.² In other words, we would not choose God unless he first chose us.

Non-believers are portrayed as unable to do or think anything which would move them one step closer to God. There is nothing they can do or say which would please God. Cf. Romans 3:10-23; Ephesians 4:17-19. In fact, non-believers are spiritually dead until the Spirit of God calls them: that is, they are unresponsive to anything outside the realm of sin (Ephesians 2:1-3). Just as Lazarus was dead until Jesus called his name, so unbelievers are dead until the Spirit of God calls them. And just as Lazarus could not boast, "Jesus couldn't have done it without me!", neither can we. Dead men don't have much to bargain with. It is important to note that Ephesians 2:8-9 is in the context of God raising us from the dead spiritually.

(4) The process of election, as worked out in our own lives, does not violate our will. That is, the doctrine of "irresistible grace" does not mean "divine coercion," as if God bullies you into submission to do his will. Rather, it is compelling persuasion. The devil has blinded the eyes of the world (2 Cor. 4:4) and once our eyes have been enlightened by the Spirit of God, we see clearly what God has done for us. Further, if grace were resistible, this would mean that the person who can resist God's will is a strong and powerful individual and those who can't (and thus those who get saved) are weaklings. That is not the biblical picture.

(5) The means of election is always through human agency. That is, God uses other believers to communicate the gospel to the lost. Cf. Romans 10:14-17. Therefore, we cannot excuse ourselves from sharing the gospel by saying, "If he's elect, God's going to save him anyway. He doesn't need me to do the job." It's true that God doesn't need any of us to do his will, but it is equally true that God uses those who are willing to obey him. Consequently, the doctrine of election should motivate us to share the gospel--not out of fear but because we want to be used by God to do his will.

(6) Election does not contradict any of God's attributes and, in fact, is a direct outgrowth of his love (Eph. 1:4-5). (See point 10 for further elaboration.)

(7) Election is not just to salvation, but to sanctification and glorification. Cf. Eph. 1:4-5; Rom. 8:28-30. In other words, those whom God has chosen are chosen not just to be saved, but also to be sanctified.

(8) The question of whether God is fair or not in choosing some but not others diminishes how great our salvation is--and how much our sin permeates us. If God were fair, we would all go to hell. If he saves one person, he is infinitely merciful.

(9) Actually, three basic questions arise when discussing election:

Is God fair?

Doesn't this make us robots?

Why should I evangelize?

All three questions are answered in Romans 9-11, the great passage in the Bible which deals with this doctrine. Romans 9 answers the question of our choice, Rom 10 answers the question of the need for evangelism, and Rom 11 answers the question of God's fairness. It should be noted as well that Paul's theology here is not in a vacuum; he begins (vv 1-3) by almost wishing that he could go to hell if it would mean that just one of his Jewish brothers would get saved!

(10) Many folks want to seek a balance between God's sovereignty and human free will. A balance needs to be sought, but this is not the place. Nowhere do we read in the Bible that God is not sovereign over our wills. Further, we have the explicit testimony of Romans 9 to the opposite effect. As well, there is an inherent imbalance between a creature's will and the Creator's will. What right do we have to claim that these two are equal?

The real balance comes between the two broad categories of God's attributes. God has moral attributes (goodness, love, mercy, justice, etc.) and amoral attributes (he is infinite, eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, etc.). In short, the balance is between his sovereignty and his goodness. If God only had amoral attributes, he may well be a tyrant. If he only had moral attributes, he would be incapable of effecting change in the world; he would be impotent.

Putting all this together we see the majesty and mystery of God. God's attributes cannot be compartmentalized. That is, he is good in his sovereignty, infinite in his mercy, loving in his omnipotence. However, we as mere finite creatures cannot comprehend the grandeur of his plan. Isaiah 55:8-9 says: "My ways are not your ways, and my thoughts are not your thoughts; but just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." There is no contradiction in God, but there is finite understanding in us.

(11) The doctrine of election is analogous to that of inspiration. God has inspired the very words of scripture (2 Tim 3:16), yet his modus operandi was not verbal dictation. Isaiah was the Shakespeare of his day; Amos was the Mark Twain. Both had widely divergent vocabularies and styles of writing, yet what each wrote was inspired by God. Luke’s style of writing and Greek syntax is quite different from John’s, yet both penned the Word of God. We read in 2 Peter 1:20-21 that no prophet originated his own prophecies, but was borne along by the Holy Spirit: “1:20 Above all, you do well if you recognize this: no prophecy of Scripture ever comes about by the prophet's own imagination, 1:21 for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (NET Bible).

Thus, we are presented with a mystery: Each biblical writer wrote the very words of God, yet each exercised his own personality and will in the process. The message originated with God, yet the process involved human volition. The miracle of inspiration, as Lewis Sperry Chafer long ago noted, is that God did not violate anyone’s personality, yet what was written was exactly what he wanted to say.

This finds parallels with election. The mystery of election is that God can choose unconditionally, yet our wills are not coerced. We are persuaded by the Holy Spirit to believe. Further, we have the sense of free will in the process, just as the biblical authors did. That is, the biblical authors did not always know that they were even writing scripture, even though God was directing their thoughts.

(12) Summary: the biblical doctrine of election is that it is unconditional, irresistible, and irrevocable. All this to the glory of God--without in any way diminishing the dignity or responsibility of man. To put this another way: A large part of maturing in the faith is this: we each need to make the progressively Copernican discovery encapsuled in the words, “I am not the center of the universe.” Or, as John the Baptist put it, “That he might increase and I might decrease.”

---

¹Charles C. Ryrie, A Survey of Bible Doctrine (Chicago: Moody Press, 1972), 118.

² Total depravity does not mean that we are as bad as we could be. Rather, it means that (1) sin has tainted every aspect of our being--our hearts, bodies, and minds; (2) we would be as bad as we could be if it were not for God's common grace (by which he protects humans in general from becoming as wicked as possible); and (3) there is no spark of the divine within us, nothing good that moves God toward that person, as though he or she deserves to be saved.