of the fire slew those men
that took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. 23. And these three
men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, fell down bound into the
midst of the burning fiery furnace. 24. Then Nebuchadnezzar the
king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto
his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of
the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king. 25.
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the
midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the
fourth is like the Son of God.'--DANIEL iii. 13-25.

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

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

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