Hello brothers and sisters,

We’ve explored so much already, and each time we’ve seen how comparing the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint reveals theological depth we’d miss with just one translation. Today, we’re diving into one of my favorite books in Scripture, the book of Daniel. This book is so rich with history, prophecy, and theological meaning that it deserves multiple visits. And we’re starting with one of the most dramatic scenes in the entire Bible: three men thrown into a furnace, and a mysterious fourth figure who appears in the flames with them.

The Setup: Bow or Burn

Daniel 3 gives us one of those “Bible story” narratives that every Sunday school kid knows: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refuse to bow to Nebuchadnezzar’s golden statue, so the king throws them into a blazing furnace.

But they don’t die. Instead, they walk around in the flames, completely unharmed.

And then Nebuchadnezzar sees something that shocks him: there are four men in the fire, not three. And the fourth one looks... different.

Here’s where it gets interesting. Depending on which Bible you’re reading— or more specifically, which textual tradition you’re reading —that fourth figure is either:

1. A son of God (or “a son of the gods”)
2. An angel of God

This isn’t a minor translation choice. This is a theological fork in the road. One reading invites a Christological interpretation, a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ. The other reading suggests an angelic visitation.

So which is it? Let’s look at the text.

The Masoretic Text: “A Son of God” (or “A Son of the Gods”)

First, a quick note: Daniel 2:4b through 7:28 is written in Aramaic, not Hebrew. This is significant because Aramaic was the lingua franca of the Babylonian and Persian empires. Daniel shifts into Aramaic when recording events and visions that concern the Gentile nations.

Here’s Daniel 3:25 in the Aramaic Masoretic Text:

Daniel 3:25 (MT - Aramaic)

“He answered and said, ‘Behold, 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 בַּר־אֱלָהִין (bar-elahin).’”

Now, how you translate בַּר־אֱלָהִין (bar-elahin) is the million-dollar question.

Breaking Down the Aramaic

1. “A son of the gods” (plural, referring to pagan deities)
2. “A son of God” (singular, using plural of majesty)
3. “The Son of God” (definite, Christological)

The KJV Translation: “The Son of God”

The King James Version translates it as:

“And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.”

This reading has been enormously influential in Christian theology. It suggests that the fourth figure was none other than Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity appearing in a pre-incarnate form (what theologians call a Christophany).

The Problem: Definite or Indefinite?

Here’s the catch: there is no definite article in the Aramaic. The text doesn’t say “the son of God”; it says “a son of gods” (or “a son of God”).

In Aramaic (as in Hebrew), when you have a construct chain like bar-elahin (”son of gods”), the entire phrase is either:

• Entirely definite: “the son of the gods”
• Entirely indefinite: “a son of gods”

It cannot be mixed without additional words. So technically, the phrase should be rendered “a son of gods” or “a son of God”—not “the Son of God.”

Modern translations reflect this:

• NASB: “the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods”
• ESV: “the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods”
• NIV: “the fourth looks like a son of the gods”
• WEBUS: “the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the gods”

But Wait… Is “Gods” Singular or Plural?

Here’s where it gets even more interesting. The Aramaic word elahin (אֱלָהִין) is technically a plural form. In polytheistic contexts, it means “gods.” But in monotheistic contexts, it can function as a plural of majesty, an intensive plural that emphasizes the greatness of the one true God.

Think of it like the Hebrew Elohim (אֱלֹהִים), which is plural in form but usually singular in meaning when referring to the God of Israel.

So the question becomes: Was Nebuchadnezzar, a pagan king, saying “this looks like one of the gods” (plural)? Or was he, in a moment of recognition, saying “this looks like a divine being, the Son of God” (singular)?

The Context: What Does Nebuchadnezzar Say Next?

Here’s where context helps. In verse 28, Nebuchadnezzar says:

“Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who has sent his angel (מַלְאֲכֵהּ, mal’akeh) and delivered his servants who trusted in him.”

Nebuchadnezzar calls the fourth figure an angel (or messenger). This suggests he understood the figure as a heavenly being sent by the God of the Hebrews. Not necessarily God Himself, but a divine emissary.

So the most natural reading of the Masoretic Text might be:

“The fourth figure looks like a son of God”—i.e., a divine being, an angelic figure of extraordinary appearance.

The Septuagint Text: “Like an Angel of God”

Now let’s look at how the Septuagint translates this passage. Remember, the LXX was translated by Jewish scholars in the third to second century B.C. Regardless of how cynical we want to be about when it was translated, it’s still long before Christ, and long before Christian theology.

Daniel 3:25 (LXX - Greek)

“And the king saw, and behold, the form of the fourth was ὡς ὁμοίωμα ἀγγέλου θεοῦ (hōs homoiōma angelou theou) - like the appearance of an angel of God.”

The LXX translators made a clear interpretive choice: they read בַּר (bar, “son”) as ἄγγελος (angelos, “angel” or “messenger”).

Why Did They Do This?

There are a few possibilities:

1. Linguistic/Idiomatic Interpretation: The LXX translators understood bar-elahin as an idiomatic phrase meaning “a divine being” or “an angelic being.” In ancient Near Eastern thought, “sons of the gods” often referred to members of the divine council, angelic beings who serve the Most High God.
2. Consistency with Nebuchadnezzar’s Own Language: Since Nebuchadnezzar himself calls the figure an “angel” in verse 28, the LXX translators may have harmonized verse 25 with verse 28 to clarify what Nebuchadnezzar meant.
3. Theological Caution: Translating bar-elahin as “son of God” could be misunderstood in a pagan context as referring to a demigod or offspring of pagan deities. By rendering it “angel of God,” the LXX avoids this ambiguity and makes it clear: this was a heavenly being sent by the one true God.

Key Greek Terms

ἄγγελος (angelos) = “angel” or “messenger”

θεοῦ (theou) = “of God” (genitive singular)

The phrase ἀγγέλου θεοῦ (angelou theou) is the standard Greek expression for “an angel of God,” a divine emissary.

This reading aligns with Nebuchadnezzar’s statement in verse 28, creating a consistent narrative: God sent His angel to protect His faithful servants.

Two Readings, Two Theologies

So which is it? A son of God, or an angel of God?

The answer depends on how you read the text and what theological framework you bring to it.

The Christophany Interpretation (MT)

Many Christians, especially those who favor the Masoretic Text and the KJV, read Daniel 3:25 as a Christophany, that is, a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus Christ.

Here’s the argument:

1. The phrase “son of God” is unique. Nebuchadnezzar didn’t say “an angel.” He said the figure looked like “a son of God” (or “the Son of God”). This is extraordinary language.
2. Other Old Testament Christophanies. Throughout the Old Testament, “the Angel of the LORD” often appears in ways that suggest He is more than an angel, He is God Himself. Examples include:
   • The Angel of the LORD who appeared to Abraham (Genesis 18)
   • The Angel of the LORD who appeared to Moses in the burning bush (Exodus 3)
   • The Angel of the LORD who appeared to Gideon (Judges 6)
   • The Angel of the LORD who appeared to Manoah (Judges 13)
3. In each case, the figure is worshipped, accepts worship, and is identified with God. Many theologians believe these are pre-incarnate appearances of Christ.
4. Jesus is the visible God. Colossians 1:15 says Jesus is “the image of the invisible God.” John 1:18 says, “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.” If God the Father is invisible and has never been seen, then any visible appearance of God in the Old Testament must be the second person of the Trinity. It must be Jesus before His incarnation.
5. Early Church Fathers believed it. Tertullian, Augustine, and Hilary all interpreted Daniel 3:25 as a Christophany. So did later theologians like Jonathan Edwards and Charles Spurgeon. This has been a longstanding Christian tradition.
6. The theological beauty of the parallel. Jesus, the Son of God, entered the flames of judgment with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. This prefigures His work on the cross, where He entered the fire of God’s wrath for us, so that we would not be consumed.

The Angelophany Interpretation (LXX)

On the other hand, many scholars— and the Septuagint itself —read Daniel 3:25 as an angelophany: the appearance of a powerful angel sent by God.

Here’s the argument:

1. Nebuchadnezzar himself calls it an angel. In verse 28, the king says, “Blessed be the God... who has sent his angel.” Nebuchadnezzar’s own interpretation is that this was an angelic being, not God Himself.
2. The LXX clarifies the meaning. The Septuagint translators, who were fluent in both Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek, understood bar-elahin as referring to an angelic being. Their translation predates Christian theology, so it’s not shaped by Christological concerns.
3. “Sons of God” can refer to angels. In Job 1:6 and 2:1, “the sons of God” (בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים, benei ha-elohim) came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan was among them. This phrase clearly refers to angelic beings.
4. Not every divine appearance is Jesus. While some “Angel of the LORD” appearances may be Christophanies, not all angelic appearances are. Angels are created beings who serve God and deliver His messages. There’s no need to identify every extraordinary angel with the pre-incarnate Christ.
5. The text doesn’t require it. The Aramaic is indefinite: “a son of gods” or “a son of God,” not “the Son of God.” The most natural reading is that Nebuchadnezzar saw a divine being, an angel, whose appearance was so glorious and otherworldly that he described it as “like a son of the gods.”

So Which View Is Right?

Here’s the beautiful thing: both readings are theologically valid, and both are enriched by the other.

The MT Reading Gives Us Christological Depth

If you read the MT as “a son of God,” you’re invited to see Christ in the fire with His people. This is profoundly comforting. Jesus doesn’t stand at a distance while His servants suffer; He enters the flames with them.

This is the message of Isaiah 43:2:

“When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and through the rivers, they shall not overwhelm you; when you walk through fire you shall not be burned, and the flame shall not consume you.”

Jesus is Immanuel, ”God with us” (Isaiah 7:14). He was with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fire. He was with Daniel in the lions’ den. He is with you in your trials.

The Christophany reading also fits the broader biblical pattern of God making Himself visible in the Old Testament through the person of the Son. It’s a beautiful, Christ-centered way to read the text.

The LXX Reading Gives Us Angelic Ministry and Textual Clarity

If you read the LXX as “an angel of God,” you’re affirming the ministry of angels as God’s agents of deliverance. Angels are real, powerful, and active in the work of protecting God’s people.

Hebrews 1:14 says, “Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?”

God sent His angel to shut the mouths of the lions for Daniel (Daniel 6:22). He sent an angel to deliver Peter from prison (Acts 12:7-11). He sends angels to watch over us (Psalm 91:11).

The LXX reading also resolves the grammatical ambiguity of the Aramaic and harmonizes verse 25 with Nebuchadnezzar’s own interpretation in verse 28.

A Both/And Reading

Here’s my take: The figure in the fire was an angel of God, and was also the Angel of the LORD, the pre-incarnate Christ.

The two readings aren’t mutually exclusive. In the Old Testament, the “Angel of the LORD” is often both angel and God, a mysterious figure who is distinguished from God and yet identified with God.

This fits the New Testament’s revelation of the Trinity: Jesus is fully God, yet He is distinct from the Father. Before His incarnation, He could appear as the “Angel of the LORD,” which is the visible manifestation of the invisible God.

So when Nebuchadnezzar saw “a son of God” or “an angel of God” in the fire, he may have been seeing the same reality described in different terms. The LXX’s “angel of God” and the MT’s “son of God” both point to a glorious, divine being who entered the flames to protect God’s faithful servants.

And whether you call that figure an angel or the Son of God, the theological message is the same: God does not abandon His people in their suffering. He enters the fire with them.

What This Means for You

You’ve probably noticed by now that in every post in this series, I’m not asking you to choose between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint. I’m inviting you to read them together.

The MT gives you the raw Aramaic: “a son of God.” It invites Christological reflection and wonder.

The LXX gives you the interpretive clarification: “an angel of God.” It grounds the passage in Nebuchadnezzar’s own words and the broader biblical category of angelic ministry.

Together, they give you a fuller picture. They show you that God’s presence with His suffering people can be described as both angelic ministry and divine companionship. Both are true. Both matter.

And here’s the pastoral application: When you walk through the fire, you are not alone.

Maybe you’re in the furnace right now. Maybe you’ve been thrown into the flames because you refused to bow. Perhaps you’ve refused to compromise your faith, to deny Christ, to conform to the world. It may be that you’re being tested, refined, and purified by suffering.

The promise of Daniel 3 is this: there is a fourth man in the fire with you.

Whether you call Him an angel or the Son of God, He is there. He will not let you burn. He will walk with you through the flames. And when you come out, you won’t even smell like smoke (Daniel 3:27).

That’s the God we serve. That’s the Savior who entered the fire of judgment on the cross for us, so that we could walk through the fires of this world with Him and emerge unscathed.

And finally, if what I do has blessed you and want to be the first to see new posts before anyone else (as well as get my Introductory Analysis of the Septuagint at no cost), you can subscribe over on Substack at https://lxxscrolls.substack.com