"Son of God" in Daniel 3: Angel or Jesus

[Muzhik]

I’m looking for help when discussing Daniel 3 with protestants. That’s the chapter where Nebuchadnezzar throws Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego into the fiery furnace for refusing to bow down and worship any other god than their God. While in the fire, everyone witnesses 4 men walking around in the furnace, praising G_D.

Now, I was always taught that the 4th person was an angel sent to free and protect them. This is borne out by verse 95 in the Catholic NABRE version (which is verse 28 in the majority of Protestant Bibles), where the king states that an angel came and protected them. The Protestants all focus (for whatever reason, probably literalness) on the verse 3 verses before (92 in NABRE, 25 in Protestant Bibles) where the king says, "“But,” he replied, “I see four men unbound and unhurt, walking in the fire, and the fourth looks like a son of God.” " This is from the KJV; other versions have variations on “as a son of the gods” (NIV).

Anyone have any clues on how to argue this question? Many of the Protestants I know view that as a prefigurement of Jesus, i.e. Jesus coming before His Incarnation to save His servants. I don’t see why they have to complicate the issue, and why they can’t just say “it’s an angel.”

 

[Pattylt]

In Judaism the term son of man is just another way to say a person or man. It did not have the connotation of a divine being.

 

[CRM_Brother]

Daniel is part of a group of books in the Old Testament known as Prophetic Literature. This grouping of books has a different literary style and usage of alegory than either the Pentateuch or the New Testament.

In Prophetic Literature, the phrase ‘son of God’ is used in the context of an angel. In the Pentateuch, it is meant to denote a son of Seth. The Catholic Church has carried this view over from its roots in the Hebrew Tradition of the time of Christ. Unfortunately, certain Protestant ‘biblical scholars’ of the nineteenth centuries invented theories about the language and literary style of the Bible which skewed these ancient teachings about exegesis. Over the years these views somewhat infiltrated Catholic exegesis. It is only in the past 50 years or so upon re-examining the sources that there has been a move to separate true Biblical interpretation from the influence of ‘scholarly’ popular opinion from the nineteenth century. One such example of this influence is the remnant of a footnote in many Catholic Bibles in Genesis about the Nephilim, which the footnote identifies as children of angels and men, whereas according to tradition and the stylistic interpretation of ‘sons of god’ found in the Pentateuch as the sons of the line of Seth, who followed God, identify the Nephilim as the offspring of unions between the sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain.

The Protestants who waver back and forth about the translation of this passage have blurred the lines between the styles and allegorical differences between the Pentateuch and the Prophetic Literature (and sometimes even the New Testament). As such, there is no clear definition of the allegory of ‘son of god’ and the translation is ambiguous.

God Bless,
Br. Ben, CRM

 

[Todd_Easton]

Anyone have any clues on how to argue this question? Many of the Protestants I know view that as a prefigurement of Jesus, i.e. Jesus coming before His Incarnation to save His servants. I don’t see why they have to complicate the issue, and why they can’t just say “it’s an angel.”

This topic is touched upon in the Catholic Encyclopedia article, Angels, in the last few paragraphs of the section entitled, "The term ‘angel’ in the Septuagint.

Haydock’s commentary on Daniel 3:92 says, in part:

Some have taken him for Jesus Christ. But St. Augustine observes, that most of these apparitions were made by angels, (Trin. iii. 11.) who are often styled “sons of God,” Job i. 6. (Tirinus; Calmet)

The “some” mentioned by Haydock may include St Justin Martyr, writing about the year 155:

Justin: But if you knew, Trypho, who He is that is called at one time the Angel of great counsel, and a Man by Ezekiel, and like the Son of man by Daniel, and a Child by Isaiah, and Christ and God to be worshipped by David, and Christ and a Stone by many, and Wisdom by Solomon, and Joseph and Judah and a Star by Moses, and the East by Zechariah, and the Suffering One and Jacob and Israel by Isaiah again, and a Rod, and Flower, and Corner-Stone, and Son of God, you would not have blasphemed Him who has now come, and been born, and suffered, and ascended to heaven; who shall also come again, and then your twelve tribes shall mourn.(Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 126)

And St Irenaeus of Lyon, writing about the year 189:

For at one time He was seen with those who were around Ananias, Azarias, Mishael, as present with them in the furnace of fire, in the burning, and preserving them from [the effects of] fire: “And the appearance of the fourth,” it is said, “was like to the Son of God. (Against Heresies, Book 4, chap. 20, paragraph 11)

Now this is the Son of God, as the Scripture represents Nebuchadnezzar the king as having said, Did not we cast three men bound into the furnace? And, lo, I do see four walking in the midst of the fire, and the fourth is like the Son of God.(Against Heresies, Book 5, chap. 5, paragraph 2)

 

[Hodos]

There is no definitive answer here. I wouldn’t get into an argument about it. Here it appears that it is saying a son of gods (plural). In the Chaldean pantheon this could refer to angels or gods themselves. Or since the document is written to Jews, it likely means an angel (since the usage of sons of god is normally referring to angels in the OT); however, it COULD also refer to the preincarnate Christ. Since the text does say that it was the angel of the LORD, and because at that point there was no understanding of God in the persons of the Father and the Son, this seems to make the most sense. But I wouldn’t rule out either possibility. I would just let it go. By the way, I am Protestant.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Since the text does say that it was the angel of the LORD …

A few verses later, the text does seem to identify him as an angel:

28 Nebuchadnez′zar said, “Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed′nego, who has sent his angel and delivered his servants, who trusted in him, and set at nought the king’s command, and yielded up their bodies rather than serve and worship any god except their own God. (Daniel 3:28)

 

[Hodos]

In Judaism the term son of man is just another way to say a person or man. It did not have the connotation of a divine being.

That depends on where you obtain it. In Ezekiel’s usage where Ezekiel is being addressed he is referred to as “son of man.” However, Daniel’s usage of the phrase is divine. So it depends on what reference you are making.

 

[Paytheon]

Two of the most powerful words in the Bible are “I AM”. Please refer to John 8:58 and you will see Jesus was around before Abraham. Follow up that research by going to Genesis 14:18 you will find Melchizedek. Melchizedek broke bread and wine with Abraham after one of Abraham’s war victory. Was Jesus around in the Old Testament? Yes. Now ask yourself is it possible Jesus was among those in the flames?