Nebuchadnezzar saw with his own eyes that either the Lord or an angel was present with the faithful servants of YHWH. “But I see four men.” Nebuchadnezzar is right. There is always a fourth man with us. Even if we cannot see his presence.

Nebuchadnezzar Makes Good on His Promise
After Daniel interpreted the king’s frightening dream, Nebuchadnezzar was greatly relieved. In fact, the king was so thankful to Daniel that he acknowledged his young Hebrew servant’s God as “God of gods and Lord of kings, and a revealer of mysteries.” The Babylonian king even made good on his promise to reward anyone who could interpret his dream. He “gave Daniel high honors and many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon and chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon” (Daniel 2:48).
Daniel remained in service to the royal court until his death about 538 BC–living well into his eighties. But while Daniel remained a trusted court advisor to both Babylonian and subsequent Persian officials, his three Hebrew friends, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, were serving elsewhere as high officials in the province of Babylon–a favor which Nebuchadnezzar granted to Daniel on their behalf. Although Nebuchadnezzar offered high praise to YHWH because he revealed the meaning of the dream to his servant Daniel (as recounted in chapter 2), it will become clear that the Babylonian king never gave up his pagan ways. He soon erected a golden statue and demanded that his subjects worship it. This strange demand is a mix of an over-inflated royal ego, ancient near-eastern power politics, combined with pagan religion. Once again, Daniel’s friends’ lives are in danger. This time Daniel will not rescue them but YHWH will, in what amounts to the next round in the on-going conflict between YHWH and the idols of Babylon.
YHWH Against the Idols
As believers in YHWH, Daniel’s three friends refuse to worship Nebuchadnezzar’s statue, believing this to be a violation of the first two commandments in the law given to Israel by YHWH–There are no Gods but YHWH, and YHWH’s people are not to worship idols. Upon learning that three of his own appointed officials refused to worship his statue–especially three men who were serving in this capacity as a favor to Daniel–Nebuchadnezzar erupts in his characteristic rage and fury. The king demands the execution of these rebellious Hebrew officials–just as he had ordered previously with his court magicians. Yet, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego will be spared again, only this by far more dramatic and miraculous means.
This passage (Daniel 3) is one of the most famous of the so-called “Bible stories” (along with “Daniel in the lion’s den”) which Christian children are taught, and which few forget because of the nature of the story, its ability to capture a child’s imagination, and because of the sing-songy names of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. But Bible stories often miss the main redemptive-historical point of the original event, which is in this case, the conflict between YHWH and the idols. The conflict is evident in the difficult struggle faced by YHWH’s faithful servants in exile, who are under tremendous pressure from a pagan king who threatens their lives if they refuse to renounce their faith in YHWH. The alternative is death and martyrdom.
As we continue our study of Daniel we come to an episode which reflects the struggle of Hebrew exiles living in Babylon now living under the heavy hand of the tyrannical king Nebuchadnezzar. Commanded by YHWH to live their lives to the fullest during their exile (cf. Jeremiah 29:1-9), this includes serving in the government of the nation which was bringing havoc upon their own people (Israel). But YHWH’s people are to worship and serve him only throughout their time away from the promised land. Nebuchadnezzar, however, now demands that all his subjects worship a newly-erected golden statue–an edict which includes all the exiled Hebrews in Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar’s order also included the rulers throughout his entire kingdom, likely extending to the Jewish vassal king back in Judah (Zedekiah). In any case, the act of bowing before such a statue would have been an extreme violation of a Jew’s conscience, and an act of open disobedience to YHWH’s commands.
The Image of Gold
As we turn to the thirty verses of Daniel 3, the scene is set in the opening verse for all that follows. “Then king Nebuchadnezzar made an image of gold, whose height was sixty cubits and its breadth six cubits. He set it up on the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon.” Ironically, the golden statue was quite possibly inspired by the previous vision which YHWH had given him of a giant and terrifying metal statue with a head of gold–which Daniel identified as Nebuchadnezzar and his kingdom (as recounted in chapter 2).
There is the very real possibility that the king ordered this statue built as a result, with a date of completion likely around December 594 or January 593 (a number of years after Daniel interpreted the dream). Based upon the dimensions given, the statue was nine feet wide, and some ninety feet high, shaped like an obelisk, with images of Nebuchadnezzar and his “gods” likely depicted on each of the four sides. The statue was about the same height as the highest palms which dominated the fertile landscape. Only the famous Greek statue, the “Colossus of Rhodes,” was taller.[1]
Zedekiah’s Rebellion Backfires
As recounted in Jeremiah 51:59-64, Zedekiah (who was then king of Judah) was forced to go to Babylon, perhaps to pay homage to Nebuchadnezzar’s statue, but then subsequently plotted a revolt against Nebuchadnezzar after being humiliated. By comparing the Babylonian Chronicles with the the Book of Jeremiah, it may indeed be the case that Zedekiah’s reaction to this forced pilgrimage and Jeremiah’s prophecy of Babylon’s eventual destruction (Jeremiah 27) motivated Judah and its current king, Zedekiah, to rebel against Babylon by making an alliance with the nations of Edom and several others.[2]
YHWH warned Judah not to do this through the prophet Jeremiah, because YHWH will deal with Babylon is his own time–he did not need Zedekiah’s help. It was this rebellion by Judah (led by Zedekiah), which prompted Nebuchadnezzar to sack Jerusalem and destroy the temple in 587. This is also why Nebuchadnezzar killed Zedekiah’s sons before blinding him, then forcibly removing him to Babylon. The events surrounding the golden statue as recounted in Daniel 3 reflect the larger world of ancient politics and royal power as Nebuchadnezzar was seeking some way to shore-up the loyalty of his vacillating vassal states. Making his subjects bow to a symbol of his power might just do the trick.
Although the building and erecting of such a statue has both religious and political ramifications, the focus of Daniel 3 falls squarely upon the religious. A universal religious confession (acknowledging or even worshiping the “gods” of Nebuchadnezzar) was one way to unify the king’s racially, culturally, and religiously diverse empire as is implied in verses 2-3.
Then King Nebuchadnezzar sent to gather the satraps, the prefects, and the governors, the counselors, the treasurers, the justices, the magistrates, and all the officials of the provinces to come to the dedication of the image that King Nebuchadnezzar had set up. Then the satraps, the prefects, and the governors, the counselors, the treasurers, the justices, the magistrates, and all the officials of the provinces gathered for the dedication of the image that King Nebuchadnezzar had set up. And they stood before the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up.
All of Nebuchadnezzar’s subjects throughout his empire, including all government officials, were summoned to attend the dedication of the statue. As one commentator points out, “a contrasting theme is skillfully woven with the main theme throughout this chapter: the absolute and unthinking acceptance of polytheistic idolatry among most of the participants in the convocation.”[3] The willing acceptance of Babylonian religion by Nebuchadnezzar’s subjects is the backdrop as Shadrack, Meshach, and Abedngo represent the faithful Jewish exiles, refusing to comply with the king’s edict.
Nebuchadnezzar’s Gambit
In constructing such an image, Nebuchadnezzar sought to unite all of subjects under a joint affirmation of the “gods” of Babylon[4]–symbolized by the golden statue. To come to Babylon for the statue’s dedication (no small feat when travel was so difficult) and pay homage to it (by bowing before it) was an act which publicly demonstrated the loyalty of the king’s subjects (the vassals) to the watching king, who was suzerain over the bowee’s land and property.[5] This is power politics at its worst–if you are truly loyal to your suzerain and want his blessings, then you will come to Babylon and bow before my statue. If not, well then, the king knows where you and your people stand. He knows where you live and with whom you trade, and will respond accordingly. Zedekiah, Judah, Jerusalem, and all those taken in exile will pay that price–even though Zedekiah may have been one of those present for this ceremony.
In verses 4-6, Daniel describes the text of Nebuchadnezzar’s order to the assembled crowd.
And the herald proclaimed aloud, “You are commanded, O peoples, nations, and languages, that when you hear the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, you are to fall down and worship the golden image that King Nebuchadnezzar has set up. And whoever does not fall down and worship shall immediately be cast into a burning fiery furnace.
The response from Nebuchadnezzar’s subjects is given in verse 7. “Therefore, as soon as all the peoples heard the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, all the peoples, nations, and languages fell down and worshiped the golden image that King Nebuchadnezzar had set up.” As an aside, three instruments mentioned are Semitic in origin (horn/a ram’s horn, pipe/a shepherd’s flute, lyre/zither), three are Greek loanwords (trigon/a four-stringed harp of triangular shape, a simple harp, bagpipes/some sort of primitive instrument using a bellows). Furthermore, large charcoal furnaces were common throughout the land for the firing of ceramics and the making of bricks–the mention of these things support an early date (6th century BC) for the Book of Daniel.
However, at least three of the king’s subjects failed to attend the dedication of the statue and were quickly ratted out to Nebuchadnezzar by their coworkers. According to verses 8-12,
At that time certain Chaldeans came forward and maliciously accused the Jews. They declared to King Nebuchadnezzar, `O king, live forever! You, O king, have made a decree, that every man who hears the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, shall fall down and worship the golden image. And whoever does not fall down and worship shall be cast into a burning fiery furnace. There are certain Jews whom you have appointed over the affairs of the province of Babylon: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. These men, O king, pay no attention to you; they do not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.
Read More
Related Posts:

Pastors, in particular, need courage and fearlessness to endure disapproval, opposition, foot-dragging, sabotage, and whisper campaigns. If confidence is an aspect of “healthy narcissism,” preachers need it, lest they falter due to criticism.
Why has the church witnessed the moral failure of so many leaders in recent years? While there are many reasons for the recent rash of failures, surely the most cited reason now is narcissism. 
In When Narcissism Comes to Church, Chuck DeGroat states narcissism is especially common among pastors because they often enjoy a high profile. Narcissists crave power, admiration, and a stage, and DeGroat says, churches choose narcissistic celebrity leaders because they appear in “glittering” packages, full of “confidence, strong leadership, clear vision” (see chaps. 1 and 4).
Lacking empathy, narcissists can exploit and discourage others. They charm colaborers, then dismiss them when they serve no purpose. Narcissists also think they do no wrong.
Therefore, when anyone calls a narcissistic pastor to repent, this registers as a gratuitous attack, and rage follows. Meanwhile, the church that has profited from the charm and skill of the narcissist is prone to defend him.
Has DeGroat found the culprit behind pastoral failures? Given that all men are flawed and sinful, it’s certainly true that the church attracts flawed leaders. But does the church especially attract the power-hungry and the narcissistic?
Ego Is a Problem 
Scripture decries egoists who love themselves most. Jesus recognized religious leaders often seek status and power. In Matthew 23:1–15, he says men seek the status, authority, and titles (like “rabbi” and “father”) that spiritual leadership confers.
Also, in Paul’s list of vices in 2 Timothy 3:2–4, self-love is at the top: “For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents…lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God.” Notice that the list begins and ends with false loves. People love themselves, money, and pleasure rather than God. Donald Guthrie rightly said, “Moral corruption follows from love falsely directed.” Even if you think today’s emphasis on narcissistic pastors is trendy and exaggerated, Paul does decry egoists who put themselves first because they love themselves most. The vices Paul names—pride and abusive speech—certainly sound like the fruit of egotism.
Is It Narcissistic to Speak for God? 
Narcissism is surely a vice and pastors, like everyone, can succumb to it. But does the church especially attract the narcissist? And if so, why?
DeGroat asserts that “the vast majority of ministerial candidates” test on a spectrum of “personality disorders which feature narcissistic traits most prominently.” He adds that rates of narcissism are “even higher among church planters” (19). Why is this the case? DeGroat quotes an unnamed colleague who says, “Ministry is a magnet for a narcissistic personality—who else would want to speak on behalf of God every week? While the vast majority of people struggle with public speaking…pastors do it regularly [and] with ‘divine authority’” (19).

The beauty of repenting from our sinful desires is that we start to attack the corruption of concupiscence when it first rears its ugly head. We don’t give our sin a head-start until it brings us fully under its control, but we ask God to forgive us, and then to begin his work of putting that sin to death, even as he causes his holiness to grow in our heart. Yes, concupiscent desires are already a violation of the Seventh Commandment; however, it is far more heinous to allow those desires to keep growing to the point that they are “not only conceived in the heart,” but they fester until they “[break] forth in words and actions” (WLC 151.3).

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus offers his authoritative teaching on the law. Through this section, we find Jesus arguing against the legalism of the scribes and the Pharisees—that is, the legalism that relaxed the infinitely high standards of the law (Matt. 5:19–20):

Beware the Leaven of the Pharisees
In every age, the church must be vigilant to avoid legalism. We must never be like the Pharisees, who “tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger” (Matt. 23:24). God tells us that his commandments are not burdensome (1 John 5:3), but to…
Read more
2 months ago · Jacob Gerber

After showing that the Sixth Commandment against murder forbids even anger at our brothers (Matt. 5:21–26), Jesus begins teaching about the true requirements of the Seventh Commandment against adultery. Similarly, Jesus criticizes the traditional teaching of the rabbis that restricted the requirements of the Seventh Commandment to forbid physical adultery alone.
Much more, Jesus insists that the Seventh Commandment requires “pure and holy affections of the heart.”1 That God forbids coveting our neighbor’s wife should have been clear from the Tenth Commandment (Ex. 20:17; Deut. 5:21).2 What Jesus intends to demonstrate, however, is that even the Seventh Commandment by itself deals with these questions of the heart.3
Result or Purpose?
Against a minimalistic view of the Seventh Commandment, Jesus says, “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:28). To understand the weight of Jesus’ words, we must ask an important question about the grammar of this sentence: is the lust the purpose of the looking, or the result of the looking? That is, does Jesus speak against the man’s lust when it is his purpose/intention for looking, or is Jesus talking about the lust that arises as a result from looking?
Looking with Lustful Intent?
Here, many (most?) commentators take the former sense of purpose, which is captured in the ESV’s translation of the verse: “everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent…”).4 According to this view of purpose, Jesus is condemning the man’s intentional, willful, volitional decision toward lust.
Lust Arising Unintentionally, Apart from Choice?
Two important technical resources, however, argue for the latter sense of result, rather than purpose. The first resource is Murray J. Harris’s widely renowned Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament classifies this as a result, rather than purpose, citing a similar use of πρός (pros) to describe result in John 11:4: “This illness does not lead to [πρός] death.”5 The second resource is the standard New Testament Greek lexicon, by Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich (BDAG), which classifies this phrase as “of the result that follows a set of circumstances (so that),” and translates the phrase as “one who looks at a woman with sinful desire.”6
According to this view of result, Jesus is condemning the lust itself that arises from looking on a woman—even when that lust arises unintentionally, and without any conscious decision of the will.
Matthew 5:28 in the Context of the Sermon on the Mount
How do we choose between the two interpretive options? To begin, we must consider the context of this passage. In the immediate context of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is revealing the full scope of the requirements of the law—requirements that go much further than we realize. So, Jesus taught that anger alone violates the Sixth Commandment (Matt. 5:22), and there is absolutely nothing in the text to suggest that this anger would be a conscious, volitional choice.
The immediate context, then, strongly suggests that Jesus is not only condemning clear, deliberate, willful choices to lust, but also (as with anger) instantaneous reactions of lust that arise from looking at someone who is not our spouse. So, it is not only a violation of the Seventh Commandment to commit physical adultery, and not only a violation when we deliberately stoke lust in our hearts, although both of those would be included.
Beyond that, Jesus is saying that any sexual desire toward someone who is not our spouse is already the sin of adultery—adultery of the heart. So, take a man who is minding his own business, but who happens to look up and sees a woman. If that man begins to experience unbidden, unchosen, and undesired sexual desires toward her rising in his heart, then that man has already sinned.
This, of course, is a heavy standard. How can we justify such a strict view of the the requirements of the law?

The Doctrine of Concupiscence

To understand the grounds on which Jesus condemns even unintentional lust, we must understand what theologians call the doctrine of concupiscence. Concupiscence is the Latin word for (sinful) desire or lust (concupiscentia), and, in the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible, this is the word that translates this key phrase in our passage: “ad concupiscendum eam” (“unto desiring/lusting after her”). This is also the Latin word that translates the word for “covet” in the Tenth Commandment (“Non concupisces…” [“You shall not covet…”]; Ex. 20:17; Deut. 5:21).
Thus, concupiscence describes sinful desires, or desires that incline toward sin. The question that theologians have debated for centuries has to do with whether concupiscence is in itself is sin, or whether concupiscence does not become sin until the will consents to the sin that concupiscence desires.
Read More
Related Posts: