Friday, August 09, 2013

Daniel 3:25: “the Son of God” or “a son of the gods”?

Note:  the argument below is rather technical and will be hard to follow without at least a little knowledge of Hebrew/Aramaic.  The Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek fonts employed are Yehudit and Helena, the standard Hebrew and Greek fonts associated with Accordance Bible software.  You can get the fonts free by downloading the trial version of Accordance, which is available on the Accordance website.  If you do not have the fonts, and do not wish to download them, you can read the article with the proper fonts by visiting my website, where I have posted this article in the Bibliology section as a PDF file.

The KJV, in Daniel 3:25, reads:

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.

The large majority of modern Bible versions render the verse as follows:

He answered and said, “But I see four men unbound, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.” (ESV)

The New King James Version reads “the Son of God,” but includes a marginal note reading, “or, a son of the gods.

Is the Authorized Version correct, or the modern versions?  The KJV translation is definitely the correct one, and the modern versions are in error, for the following reasons.

First, the phrase Ny`IhDlTa_rAb in Daniel 3:25 is properly translated “the Son of God,” not “a son of the gods.”  First, the definiteness of the absolute noun Ny`IhDlTa, although nonarticular, makes the construct noun rAb definite likewise—it is “the Son,” not “a son,” as in Daniel 4:9, 15; 5:11, 14 the nonarticular Ny§IhDlTa Aj…wêr “the spirit,” not “a spirit,” of the gods/God, and in Daniel 5:11 Ny™IhDlTa_tAmVkDj is “the wisdom of the gods,” not “a wisdom of gods.”

Second, in Daniel 3:25 the translation “God” for Ny`IhDlTa, rather than “gods,” is superior.  It is true that Ny`IhDlTa is a plural form, and it is likewise true that, unless one renders NyIhDlTa Aj…wr (Daniel 4:9, 15; 5:11, 14) as “the Spirit of God” rather than “the spirit of the gods,” in the other instances where the plural Ny`IhDlTa is found in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 10:11; Daniel 2:11, 47; 3:12, 14, 18; 4:5–6, 15; 5:4, 11, 14, 23), the translation “gods” is proper, while the singular ;hDlTa is employed of the true God of Israel or of a particular but singular false god (Daniel 2:18–20, 23, 28, 37, 44–45, 47; 3:12, 15, 17, 26, 28–29, 32; 4:5; 5:3, 18, 21, 23, 26; 6:6, 8, 11–13, 17, 21, 23–24, 27; Ezra 4:24–5:2; 5:5, 8, 11–17; 6:3, 5, 7–10, 12, 14, 16–18; 7:12, 14–21, 23–26).  While these facts certainly merit consideration, they do not prove that Daniel 3:25 refers to “gods” for the following reasons.  First, the equivalent Hebrew plural to the Aramaic Ny`IhDlTa of Daniel 3:25 is MyIhølTa, the plural noun regularly and overwhelmingly used for the singular true God, Jehovah.  If the Hebrew plural MyIhølTa, the overwhelming majority of the time, “God” rather than “gods,” one must at least allow for the possibility that the Aramaic plural Ny`IhDlTa refers to “God,” rather than “gods,” in Daniel 3:25, when spoken of with reference to the true Deity revealed in Scripture.  Second, while the other instances of the Aramaic plural NyIhDlTa in the Old Testament refer to “gods,” rather than to “God” (again, on the assumption that NyIhDlTa Aj…wr is “the spirit of the gods” rather than “the Spirit of God,”—yet see Genesis 41:38—the My™IhølTa Aj…wõr is the pneuvma qeouv of the LXX, “the Spirit of God” mentioned on the lips of a pagan) in every other case the plural NyIhDlTa refers, at least in the mind of the speaker, to false gods, rather than the true God.  When the Hebrew plural MyIhølTa refers to false gods, it is also properly rendered in the plural as “gods,” but such a fact does not alter the use of the plural MyIhølTa for the single true God also.  As the use of the Hebrew plural MyIhølTa for a plurality of false gods does not eliminate its use for the singular true God also, the use of the plural NyIhDlTa for a plurality of false gods does not mean that the Aramaic plural cannot also refer to the singular true God.  Third, Aramaic usage of the plural of forms of words for “God” in reference to solely the one true God of the Bible is abundant.  The plural of hDlSa is employed 17 times in the Targums of Onkelos, Jonathan, and the Writings of the one true God, and only twice employed of “gods” (Genesis 31:53; Jeremiah 5:14; 15:16; 35:17; 38:17; 44:7; Hosea 12:6; Amos 3:13; 4:13; 5:14–16, 27; 6:8, 14; Psa 51:16; 147:12, the true God;  Psalm 135:5; 136:2, to “gods.”)  The Targum Neofeti twice employs the same plural for the one true God (Exodus 18:11; Deuteronomy 1:11).  The Targum Pseudo-Jonathan does the same in Exodus 18:11.  Thus, the phenomenon of employing a plural form for the one true God of Israel is not restricted to Hebrew, but appears in Aramaic also.  Fourth, the standard Koehler/Baumgartner Hebrew lexicon states that the word ;hDlTa, “God/gods” in Daniel 3:25, can be used in the plural of the one God of Israel (hDlTa, 2bd).  Fifth, ancient translational evidence supports the rendering “the Son of God.”  The LXX translated Daniel 3:25 with the singular aÓgge÷lou qeouv, understanding the reference to be to “God” with the genitive singular, rather than the genitive plural, form of qeo/ß—the LXX supports a reference to “God,” not to the “gods.”  Theodotian and Aquila likewise read ui˚w◊ˆ qeouv, “the Son of God,” not a reference to “gods.”  The Vulgate similarly supports a reference in Daniel 3:25 to the singular “Son of God,” rather than “the son of the gods,” through its rendering with the singular filio Dei.  Furthermore, “in Akkadian the equivalent plural [to the Aramaic NyIhDlTa] is used for a single deity” (Word Biblical Commentary on Daniel 5:5).  The Authorized Version follows very strong evidence in ancient translations in its reference to “the Son of God” in Daniel 3:25.  Sixth, the context supports a reference to “the Son of God” rather than “a/the son of the gods.”  First, the heathen gods had many sons, so Nebuchadnezzar would not speak of “the son of the gods,” but the translation “a son of the gods” has been shown to be inferior above. Second, Nebuchadnezzar immediately refers to “the most high God” (aDyD;lIo a¶DhDlTa) after his statement of v. 25.  After seeing “the Son of God,” Nebuchadnezzar would naturally conclude that the three Hebrew children were “servants of the most high God,” but seeing “a son of the gods” would have no obvious connection to “the most high God.”  Nebuchadnezzar would have known of the Son of God from Daniel and his three friends, as the Son of God had been proclaimed the Object of faith for the heathen nations for hundreds of years at a minimum already (cf. Psalm 2:12, where king David exhorts the heathen to trust in God’s “Son,” the Aramaic word rAb being employed by David, as it is in Daniel 3:25).  Seventh, “the Son of God” is identified with the Angel of the LORD in Daniel 3:28; 6:22, the preincarnate Second Person of the Trinity, who promised, “when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned” (Isaiah 43:2). 

For all of these reasons, Daniel 3:25 is properly referred to “the Son of God,” not “a/the son of the gods.”  Daniel 3:25, 28 consequently makes a connection between the Son of God and the Angel of Jehovah, the preincarnate Christ.  The Son of God delivered His beloved saints out of the midst of the fiery furnace.  Furthermore, the Authorized Version is again vindicated in its translation, while the modern Bible versions are shown to be inferior and corrupt.



The Preacher said...

Brother Kent,

You did not need to waste a bunch of good space with that "language study". Anyone reading IN CONTEXT Daniel 3 can simply come to the conclusion that "the Son of God" MUST be correct. The reading "a son of the gods" is of the devil and any Hebrew manuscript that reads as such is corrupt.

You see, the English King James Bible being the very words of God today would be used to determine the correct Hebrew or Greek text.

KJB1611 said...

Dear George,

There is no textual variant in Daniel 3:25. The question is one of translation, not of textual variation in this verse.

Furthermore, the King James is correct and Daniel 3:25 because it is a correct translation of the Hebrew, so showing that this is the case is valuable.

Finally, posts that end with TDR are written by Thomas Ross, not by Kent Brandenburg.

Thanks for the comment.


Anonymous said...

Daniel 3:25 is correct in the KJV without a doubt. Many focus only on 3:25. Look at the key word in that sentence "LIKE" He was not 100% so much so that in Daniel 3:28 Nebuchadnezzar says "his angel."

I do agree the NIV, ESV and others have some nerve to change the obvious in that verse 3:25

Unknown said...

Enlightenment can only be brought in this manner. You have to remove every teaching you've ever been taught. What am I about to say is going to seem rather extreme to all of you but very much the truth. There are Jewish teachings that teach the same story but instead of the Son of God that has the Archangel Michael in the furnace. Jesus is both The Lion and the lamb the lion being the Archangel and the lamb being the Messiah. The two chief princesses. now I know what everyone is going to say, angels are created beings and therefore cannot be like God we are made better than them because we are of flash. I get that but I also get not to question God "I am what I am" those are his words. Look at the reading from The Book of Life on the day of final judgment Jesus is there, Michael the Archangel is as well. And something I learned in Reading in Revelations recently is that when he stands all judgment and mercy cease I don't know if any of you gentlemen can honestly say that you have authority or are made better. Everyone's going to want to argue and say something that they were taught I'll ask each one of you before you bring your points to do the research on who the Archangel really is and also pray to God to give you peace or what is truly correct for I am merely a man and man will lead you astray every single time. Go to seek God's word remember it's mainly in the old Testament. I hope this brings a light mint and I hope everyone has a blessed day

KJB1611 said...

Dear Mr. Gonzalez,

I am not completely sure what you are saying, but the Bible is very clear that Michael the Archangel is only "one of the chief princes" (Daniel 10:13), while the Son of God, as He is the eternal Deity, is not "one of" a group of princes but is exalted high above every other (Php 2:5-11). Christ is definitely not Michael the Archangel.

It sounds like you are involved in a false religion. Please see:

If you are a Seventh Day Adventist, please read "Bible Truths for Seventh Day Adventist Friends" here:

Thank you.

Of course, the Hebrew word malach and the Greek word angelos simply refer to a messenger, to the Messenger of Jehovah in the Old Testament can be the preincarnate Christ without making Him into a created being.

George said...

I will be linking to this article in my upcoming Daniel commentary "Desealing Daniel" concerning the true KJB reading of Daniel 3:25. Of course, the context is clear, but I appreciate the study and it is helpful. God bless you for this.

KJB1611 said...

Glad it is a blessing!

! I would suggest linking to the version accessible at as the PDF file there doesn’t t have the Hebrew characters garbled.