Daniel 3:13

Dan 3:13 Then Nebuchadnezzar in [his] rage and fury commanded to bring Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Then they brought these men before the king.

Ver. 13. Then Nebuchadnezzar in his rage and fury.] His blood boiling at his heart, as brimstone doth at the match; for preventing whereof nature hath placed the heart near to the lungs, ut cum ira ascenditur, pulmonis humore temperetur, for an allay to the heat of it, lest perturbations should boil it into brine.

Commanded to bring Shradrach.] Who, it seems, were present at first, with a holy boldness, confronting their idolatries in the very teeth of the king and nobles. Daniel is excused by his absence and ignorance. But perhaps Nebuchadnezzar might show him the like favour as our Henry VIII did Cranmer, who disputing zealously against the six articles, was willed by the king to depart out of the Parliament House into the council chamber for a time, till the Act should pass, and be granted; which he notwithstanding with humble protestation refused to do. {a} And so it is likely would Daniel, who must therefore be excused as before.

{a} Acts and Mon., 1037.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Dan 3:13. Then Nebuchadnezzar in his rage, &c. — How little was it to the honour of this mighty prince that he had rule over so many nations, when, at the same time, he had no rule over his own spirit! How unfit was he to rule reasonable men, who would not himself be ruled by reason! Surely it did not need to surprise him to hear that these three men did not now serve his gods, for he knew very well they never had done it, and that their religion, to which they had always adhered, forbade them to do it. Nor had he any reason to think they acted thus in contempt of his authority, since they had in all instances showed themselves respectful and dutiful to him as their prince.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Daniel

HARMLESS FIRES

Dan 3:13 - Dan 3:25.

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 {Dan 3:13, Dan 3:19}, 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; and the omission makes the clause more emphatic, as insisting on the act, and slurring over the self-evident result.

On the other hand, in the next clause the act is slightly touched {‘if ye worship not’}; and all the stress comes on the grim description of the consequence. This monarch, who has been accustomed to bend men’s wills like reeds, tries to shake these three obstinate rebels by terror, and opens the door of the furnace, as it were, to let them hear it roar. He finishes with a flash of insolence which, if not blasphemy, at least betrays his belief that he was stronger than any god of his conquered subject peoples.

But the main point to notice in this speech is the unconscious revelation of his real motive in demanding the act of worship. The crime of the three was not that they worshipped wrongly, but that they disobeyed Nebuchadnezzar. He speaks of ‘my gods’, and of the ‘image which I have set up.’ Probably it was an image of the god of the Babylonian pantheon whom he took for his special patron, and was erected in commemoration of some victorious campaign.

At all events, the worship required was an act of obedience to him, and to refuse it was rebellion. Idolatry is tolerant of any private opinions about gods, and intolerant of any refusal to obey authority in worship. So the early Christians were thrown to the lions, not because they worshipped Jesus, but because they would not sacrifice at the Emperor’s command. It is not only heathen rulers who have confounded the spheres of civil and religious obedience. Nonconformity in England was long identified with disloyalty; and in many so-called Christian countries to-day a man may think what he likes, and worship as he pleases in his chamber, if only he will decently comply with authority and pretend to unite in religious ceremonies, which those who appoint and practise them observe with tongue in cheek.

But we may draw another lesson from this truculent apostle of his god. He is not the only instance of apparent religious zeal which is at bottom nothing but masterfulness. ‘You shall worship my god, not because he is God, but because he is mine.’ That is the real meaning of a great deal which calls itself ‘zeal for the Lord.’ The zealot’s own will, opinions, fancies, are crammed down other people’s throats, and the insult in not thinking or worshipping as he does, is worse in his eyes than the offence against God.

The kind of furnace in which recusants are roasted has changed since Nebuchadnezzar’s time, and what is called persecution for religion is out of fashion now. But every advance in the application of Christian principle to social and civil life brings a real martyrdom on its advocates. Every audacious refusal to bow to the habits or opinions of the majority, is visited by consequences which only the martyr spirit will endure. Despots have no monopoly of imperious intolerance. A democracy is more cruel and more impatient of singularity, and especially of religious singularity, than any despot.

England and America have no need to fear the old forms of religious persecution. In both, a man may profess and proclaim any kind of religion or of no religion. But in both, the advance guard of the Christian Church, which seeks to apply Christ’s teachings more rigidly to individual and social life, has to face obloquy, ostracism, misrepresentation, from the world and the fossil church, for not serving their gods, nor worshipping the golden image which they have set up. Martyrs will be needed and persecutors will exist till the world is Christian.

How did the three confessors meet this rumble of thunder about their ears? The quiet determination of their reply is very striking and beautiful. It is perfectly loyal, and perfectly unshaken. ‘We have no need to answer thee’ {Revised Version}. ‘It is ill sitting at Rome and striving with the Pope.’ Nebuchadnezzar’s palace was not precisely the place to dispute with Nebuchadnezzar; and as his logic was only ‘Do as I bid you, or burn,’ the sole reply possible was, ‘We will not do as you bid, and we will burn.’ The ‘If’ which is immediately spoken is already in the minds of the speakers, when they say that they do not need to answer. They think that God will take up the taunt which ended the king’s tirade. Beautifully they are silent, and refer the blusterer to God, whose voice they believe that He will hear in His deed. ‘But Thou shalt answer, Lord, for me,’ is the true temper of humble faith, dumb before power as a sheep before her shearers, and yet confident that the meek will not be left unvindicated. Let us leave ourselves in God’s hands; and when conscience accuses, or the world maligns or threatens, let us be still, and feel that we have One to speak for us, and so we may hold our peace.

The rendering of Dan 3:17 is doubtful, but the general meaning is clear. The brave speakers have hope that God will rebuke the king’s taunt, and will prove Himself to be able to deliver out of his hand. So they repeat his very words with singular boldness, and contradict him to his face. They have no absolute certainty of deliverance, but whether it comes or not will make no manner of difference to them. They have absolute certainty as to duty; and so they look the furious tyrant right in the eyes, and quietly say, ‘We will not serve thy gods.’ Nothing like that had ever been heard in those halls.

Duty is sovereign. The obligation to resist all temptations to go against conscience is unaffected by consequences. There may be hope that God will not suffer us to be harmed, but whether He does or not should make no difference to our fixed resolve. That temper of lowly faith and inflexible faithfulness which these Hebrews showed in the supreme moment, when they took their lives in their hands, may be as nobly illustrated in the small difficulties of our peaceful lives. The same laws shape the curves of the tiny ripples in a basin and of the Atlantic rollers. No man who cannot say ‘I will not’ in the face of frowns and dangers, be they what they may, and stick to it, will do his part, He who has conquered regard for personal consequences, and does not let them deflect his course a hairsbreadth, is lord of the world.

How small Nebuchadnezzar was by the side of his three victims! How empty his threats to men who cared nothing whether they burned or not, so long as they did not apostatise! What can the world do against a man who says, ‘It is all one to me whether I live or die; I will not worship at your shrines?’ The fire of the furnace is but painted flames to such an one.

The savage punishment intended for the audacious rebels is abundantly confirmed as common in Babylon by the inscriptions, which may be seen quoted by many commentators. The narrative is exceedingly graphic. We see the furious king, with features inflamed with passion. We hear his hoarse, angry orders to heat the furnace seven times hotter, which he forgot would be a mercy, as shortening the victims’ agonies. We see the swift execution of the commands, and the unresisting martyrs bound as they stood, and dragged away by the soldiers to the near furnace, the king following. Its shape is a matter of doubt. Probably the three were thrown in from above, and so the soldiers were caught by the flames.

‘And these three men . . . fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace’ Their helplessness and desperate condition are pathetically suggested by that picture, which might well be supposed to be the last of them that mortal eyes would see. Down into the glowing mass, like chips of wood into Vesuvius, they sank. The king sitting watching, to glut his fury by the sight of their end, had some way of looking into the core of the flames.

The story shifts its point of view with very picturesque abruptness after Dan 3:23. The vaunting king shall tell what he saw, and thereby convict himself of insolent folly in challenging ‘any god’ to deliver out of his hand. He alone seems to have seen the sight, which he tells to his courtiers. The bonds were gone, and the men walking free in the fire, as if it had been their element. Three went in bound, four walk there at large; and the fourth is ‘like a son of the gods,’ by which expression Nebuchadnezzar can have meant nothing more than he had learned from his religion; namely, that the gods had offspring of superhuman dignity. He calls the same person an angel in Dan 3:28. He speaks there as the three would have spoken, and here as Babylonian mythology spoke.

But the great lesson to be gathered from this miracle of deliverance is simply that men who sacrifice themselves for God find in the sacrifice abundant blessing. They may, or may not, be delivered from the external danger. Peter was brought out of prison the night before his intended martyrdom; James, the brother of John, was slain with the sword, but God was equally near to both, and both were equally delivered from ‘Herod and from all the expectation of the people of the Jews.’ The disposal of the outward event is in His hands, and is a comparatively small matter. But no furnace into which a man goes because he will be true to God, and will not yield up his conscience, is a tenth part so hot as it seems, and it will do no real harm. The fire burns bonds, but not Christ’s servants, consuming many things that entangled, and setting them free. ‘I will walk at liberty: for I seek Thy precepts’-even if we have to walk in the furnace. No trials faced in obedience to God will be borne alone. ‘When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; . . . when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned.’

The form which Nebuchadnezzar saw amid the flame, as invested with more than human majesty, may have been but one of the ministering spirits sent forth to minister to the martyrs-the embodiment of the divine power which kept the flames from kindling upon them. But we have Jesus for our Companion in all trials, and His presence makes it possible for us to pass over hot ploughshares with unblistered feet; to bathe our hands in fire and not feel the pain; to accept the sorest consequences of fidelity to Him, and count them as ‘not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed,’ and is made more glorious through these light afflictions. A present Christ will never fail His servants, and will make the furnace cool even when its fire is fiercest.

Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3:13 Nebuchadnezzar was capable of deadly rage against even his most honored officials (cp. 2:12, 48-49).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

[Daniel 3:13] Then (בֵּאדַיִן - Be'adayin)... to be brought (לְהַיְתָיָה - l'haytaya): [This means] like [the Hebrew imperative meaning] “Bring!” [e.g., הֵתָיוּ - hetayu]. However, it [the Aramaic verb form] is from the causative verbal stem (binyan kavéd ha-nusaf - lit. 'the heavy conjugation with addition'), because the verb is transitive (ha-poʿel yotze).

Ibn Ezra on the Tanakh — English translations: “Sefaria Community Translation” (CC0 1.0 (public-domain dedication)); “Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009” (CC BY 4.0); and “Commentary of Ibn Ezra on Isaiah - trans. by M. Friedlander, 1873” (public domain). Text via Sefaria.

bring--Instead of commanding their immediate execution, as in the case of the Magi (Dan 2:12), Providence inclined him to command the recusants to be brought before him, so that their noble "testimony" for God might be given before the world powers "against them" (Mat 10:18), to the edification of the Church in all ages.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

This narrative clearly assures us, how kings consult only their own grandeur by a show of piety, when they claim the place of their deities. For it seems very wonderful for King Nebuchadnezzar to insult all the gods, as if there was no power in heaven unless what he approved off What god, says he, can pluck out of my hand? Why then did he worship any deity? Simply to retain the people by a curb, and fires to strengthen his own power, without the slightest affection of piety abiding within his mind. At the beginning Daniel relates how the king was inflamed with wrath. For nothing is more troublesome to kings than to see their authority despised; they wish every one to be obedient to themselves, even when their commands are most unjust After the king is cool again, he asks Shadraeh, Meshaeh, and Abed-nego, whether they were prepared to worship his god and his golden image? Since he addresses them doubtfully, and gives them a free choice, his words imply moderation. He seems to free them from all blame, if they will only bow themselves down hereafter. He now adds directly, if ye are not prepared, behold I will throw you into a furnace of burning fire; and at length breaks forth into that sacrilegious and dreadful blasphemy — There is no god who can deliver the saints alive out of his hand!

We see, then, in the person of Nebuchadnezzar, how kings swell with pride, while they pretend some zeal for piety; since in reality no reverence for God influences them, while they expect all men to obey every command. And thus, as I have said, they rather substitute themselves for God, than desire to worship him and promote his glory. This is the meaning of the words, the statue which I have created, and which I have made; as if he had said, You are not allowed to deliberate about worshipping this image or not,; my orders ought to be sufficient for you. I have erected it purposely and designedly; it was your duty simply to obey me. We see then how he claims the supreme power, by fashioning a god. Nebuchadnezzar is not now treating matters of state policy; he wishes the statue to he adored as a deity, because he had decreed it, and had promulgated his edict. And we must always remember what I have touched upon, namely, this example of pride is set before us, to shew us not to attach ourselves to any religion with rashness, but to listen to God and depend on his authority and commands, since if we listen to man, our errors would be endless. Although kings are so proud and ferocious, yet we must be guided by this rule — Nothing pleases God but what he has commanded in his word; and the principle of true piety is the obedience which we ought to render to him alone. With respect to blasphemy, it clearly demonstrates my previous assertion, however kings put forward some desire for piety, yet they despise every deity, and think of nothing but extolling their own magnificence. Hence, they traffic in the name of God to attract greater reverence towards themselves; but at the same time, if they choose to change their deities a hundred times a-day, no sense of religion will hinder them. Religion, then, is to the kings of the earth nothing but a pretext; but they have neither reverence nor fear of God in their minds, as the language of this profane king proves. What God? says he, clearly there is no God. If any one reply — he speaks comparatively, since he here defends the glory of his own god whom he worshipped, still he utters this blasphemy against all gods, and is impelled by intolerable arrogance and diabolical fury. We are now coming to the principal point where Daniel relates the constancy with which Shadraeh, Meshach, and Abed-nego were endued.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

Then Nebuchadnezzar, in his rage and fury,.... Which did not became him as a man, much less as a king, and still less as engaged in devotion and religion;

commanded to bring Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; that is, immediately before him; who very probably were not afar off: he did not order them in his wrath and fury to be slain directly, as he did the wise men and soothsayers in another case; but to be brought before him, and examined first, that he might know the truth of these allegations against them; which shows, amidst all his rage, he retained still some respect for them, and esteem of them:

then they brought these men before the king; which they had not much trouble to do, being very ready to come and answer for themselves, and give an account of their conduct, and their reason for it.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Then Nebuchadnezzar, in his rage and fury - The word rendered “fury” means “wrath.” Everything that we learn of this monarch shows that he was a man of violent passions, and that he was easily excited, though he was susceptible also of deep impressions on religious subjects. There was much here to rouse his rage. His command to worship the image was positive. It extended to all who were summoned to its dedication. Their refusal was an act of positive disobedience, and it seemed necessary that the laws should be vindicated. As a man and a monarch, therefore, it was not unnatural that the anger of the sovereign should be thus enkindled.

Commanded to bring Shadrach ... - It is remarkable that he did not order them at once to be slain, as he did the magicians who could not interpret his dream, Dan 2:12. This shows that he had some respect still for these men, and that he was willing to hear what they could say in their defense. It is proper, also, to recognize the providence of God in inclining him to this course, that their noble reply to his question might be put on record, and that the full power of religious principle might be developed.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Why not Daniel too, because he was chief of all in honour?

Answ. Because the king had a greater favour for him, and he was popular, and beloved for his great wisdom and unblamable carriage; they would not meddle with him now, lest by his knowledge and interest in the king he might chance to spoil their plot.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

13-15. See note, Dan_3:5. “Infuriated with rage” (Greek version) against his proteges, the king gives the three Hebrews one more opportunity of saving their lives by excusing themselves for what might have been an unintentional insult, if they would agree to worship the image of Bel (Dan_3:1) at the next hour of public worship. He had previously, according to the account, recognized Jehovah as the God of gods and Lord of kings (Dan_2:47) but these were only the formal titles of all the great gods in the Babylonian pantheon, and from Nebuchadnezzar’s standpoint no courtier need refuse these titles to any deity which the king might wish to honor unless by such act he meant to throw off allegiance to the king who reigned through the favor of the national gods. (See note Dan_3:6.)

Remembering the peculiar faith of the Jews in the God of Palestine as being all powerful, he closes with the caustic warning that not even their boasted God of gods could deliver them if disobedient to the king. (Compare 2Ki_18:33.) This warning becomes more impressive when we remember that the most common titles of Bel were “the conqueror,” “the lord of lands,” “who fixes the decrees of heaven and earth.”

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Then Nebuchadnezzar in his rage and fury commanded to bring Shadrach, Meshach, and Ahed-nego. Then they brought these men before the king. The Septuagint differs from the Massoretic in translating amj (hama) as a verb, and therefore rendering, qumwqeiv ojrgh, "infuriated with rage." Theodotion is in close agreement with the Massoretic, as also the Pe-shitta, with this difference, that the Syriac repeats the preposition, in which it is followed by Jerome. The word translated. "brought" presents some grammatical difficulty: the word is Wytyhe (haythayoo). The form seems active, but the meaning is passive. Professor Bevan suggests a difference of vocalization. The accusation of those who desired to devour these Jewish councillors was successful in its immediate aim. Nebuchadnezzar is filled with rage and fury against those who, having been the creatures of his favour, had yet dared to do despite to his authority. It might even be that their unheard-of want of courtesy to the monarch would also be regarded as discourtesy still more flagrant to the god to whose honour the statue or pillar had been erected, and this dedicative feast instituted. He commands the criminals to be brought to him. Fierce and furious as Nebuchadnezzar is, fanatic as he is for the religion of his fathers, he is yet just. These officials, however disrespectfully they have acted, have yet a right to be heard in their own defence. They are sent for by the monarch, and in due course they come. It is not impossible that Nebuchadnezzar, with all his rage and fury, was yet shrewd enough to see envy behind the accusation; it is because these men are Jews, and have been highly advanced, that the Chaldeans are ready to bring accusations of impiety against them.

Vers. 13-15.

A critical alternative.

The alternative which these young men were called to face was idolatry or death. The claimants for their loyalty were Nebuchadnezzar on the one hand, God on the other. The former appealed to all the selfish principles of their nature; the latter, to the moral sense alone. Herein lies the crucial trial of human life. Shall God"s voice be supreme? his authority be dominant over every part of my nature, over every act of my life? Or, on the other hand, shall some other master prevail? On our answer to this question hangs our heaven and hell.

I AN ALTERNATIVE OF CONDUCT. Much might have been said by a wily advocate to induce compliance with the demand of the king. He had not demanded that his subjects should abjure their loyalty to another god; they might, therefore, make a compromise by rendering this outward act of idolatry, while they reserved the true love and homage of their hearts for God. Were they not the subjects yea, the captives of this earthly prince? and did he not rule by Divine right? Had he not been their benefactor in raising them to honour? and would it not seem base ingratitude to resist? Was it not desirable to maintain a general uniformity, and not seem to countenance rebellion and irreligion? Would it not preserve the public peace, advance their own interests, and protect the fortunes of their co-exiles, if they would comply? It was but a solitary act; God would readily condone it; it need not be repeated! Was it worth while to disturb the empire on so trivial a matter? Thus a thousand voices would whisper. But

II IT WAS AN ALTERNATIVE OF PRINCIPLE. Unless these Hebrews should act a falsehood, this deed of idolatry would be the visible expression of their belief. Outward acts are the proper fruits of inward conviction. A God-fearing man cannot bring forth the fruits of idolatry; neither can an idolatrous man bear the fruits of godliness. Seeming compliance here would be sheer hypocrisy; and are these young Hebrews going to stamp themselves hypocrites? This was a judgment-day: these young men were on trial before God. Say what men will about mutual concessions, forbearance, peace, this was a conspicuous occasion for the test of principle. If these young men played the coward now, they would be cowards for ever the sport of every capricious wind of circumstance. If the ship"s cable will not hold in a storm, of what use is it? True principle of character is of the nature of steel: you cannot permanently bend it. Leave it to its own action, and it flies back to its proper line.

III IT WAS AS ALTERNATIVE OF DESTINY. Compliance brought present life; resistance was to issue in violent death. Hence it is evident that this act of idolatry was no trivial or even ordinary act. The king himself raised it into a public test. Yet this pompous king quite overshot the mark. Did he talk about the result and issue of this supposed contumacy? He was as a man who reckons without his host. The issues of events lie in another hand than his. Royal threats are often like the chaff which the wind driveth away. While this Babylonian king spake, a mightier King than he revoked the human mandate and inverted the predicted destiny. Nebuchadnezzar said in substance to these godly youths, "Die!" God uttered with the same breath his fiat, "Live!" "The Lord bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought." Instead of disgrace, there came honour. Instead of death, immortality! D.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

filled with anger and rage

Nebuchadnezzar's anger and rage were so intense that they are spoken of as if they had filled him up. Here "anger" and "rage" mean about the same thing and are used to emphasize how upset the king was. AT: "extremely angry" (See: Metaphor and Doublet)

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego

These are the Babylonian names of the three Jewish friends of Daniel. See how you translated these names in Daniel 1:7.

Have you made your minds up

Here "mind" refers to deciding. To "make up your mind" is an idiom that means to firmly decide. AT: "Have you firmly decided" (See: Metonymy and Idiom)

prostrate yourselves to

The three men would not do this to worship the statue. AT: "stretch yourselves out on the ground face down in worship of" (See: Symbolic Action)

the golden statue that I have set up

Nebuchadnezzar commanded his men to do this work, he did not do the work himself. AT: "the golden statue that my men have set up" (See: Metonymy)

translationWords

Nebuchadnezzar

anger

rage

command

worship

false god

gold

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

ordered to bring [as translated,] ordered to bring.

were brought [as translated,] were brought.

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.