Daniel 3:21

21. coats] The meaning of the Aram. sarbâl (only here and Dan_3:27) is uncertain (see the very full discussion in Ges. Thesaurus); but on the whole mantles is the most probable. This is the sense which the word has in the Talmud[230], in which it occurs frequently (Ges. p. 971; Levy, NHWB[231], s.v.), so that it has ancient usage in its favour. On the other hand, Aq. and Theod. (σαράβαρα), LXX. in Dan_3:27 (94), Symm. (ἀναξυρίδες), Pesh., express the meaning trousers (though of a looser kind than those worn by us),—an article of dress known independently (from Herod., and other authorities) to have been worn at least by the ancient Scythians and Persians, and to have been called by them σαράβαρα. The word, in the same sense, passed into Arabic, in the form sirwâl (e.g. in Saadyah’s version of Lev_6:3), as well as into several of the Romance languages. In both these senses the word may be originally Persian: in that of mantle, meaning properly (according to Andreas) a head-covering (* sarabâra), for which in Persia the peasants often use their mantle; in that of trousers, corresponding to the Mod. Pers. shalwâr, ‘under-breeches.’ The Syriac form of σαράβαρα has however a different sibilant from the one which is here used; and, as Mr Stanley A. Cook remarks[232], ‘mantles, long flowing robes, and therefore extremely liable to catch the flames,’ are more likely to be specially mentioned in the present connexion than trousers, or (R.V.) hosen.

[230] And so also, as a loan-word from the Aram., the Arabic sirbâl: see Fränkel, Aram. Fremdwörter im Arab. (1886), p. 47.

[231] HWB. M. Levy, Neuhebräisches und Chaldäisches Wörterbuch, 1876–89.

[232] ‘On the articles of dress mentioned in Dan_3:21,’ in the Journ. of Philology, xxvi. (1899), p. 306 ff.

their hosen] Another uncertain word (Aram. paṭṭish). Sept. and Theod. render τιάραι, ‘turbans’; Pesh. uses the same word, which, however, seems otherwise to be known only to the Syriac lexicographers, who explain it sometimes as a ‘tunic,’ sometimes as ‘trousers,’ sometimes as a kind of ‘gaiter’ (Payne Smit[233] Thes. Syr. col. 3098). R.V. tunics; marg. ‘Or, turbans.’

[233] yne Smith R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus.

hats] The rendering hats (or caps) is supported by the fact that the same word karbâl (in the fem.) seems in post-Bibl. Hebrew (Levy, s.v.) to denote some kind of covering for the head, and means certainly, both in the Talmud and in Syriac (P.S[234] 1810), the comb of a cock. Others, comparing what is apparently the cognate verb in 1Ch_15:27, render mantle; but the text of the passage quoted is uncertain.

[234] .S. R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Dan 3:21 Then these men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats, and their [other] garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.

Ver. 21. So these men were bound in their coats, &c.] Which, for haste of the execution, were never taken off, as is usually done. But these executioners were swift to shed blood, and had blood again to drink, for they were worthy.

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.

[Daniel 3:21] Then (בֵּאדַיִן - Be'adayin)... in their shirts/mantles (בְּסַרְבָּלֵיהוֹן - b'sarbaleyhon): These are the outer garment/mantle (ha-simlah ha-elyonah). And it is the custom of the nations to burn people [while still] in their garments, which are [considered] worth nothing [in this context].

And their hats/turbans (וְכַרְבְּלָתְהוֹן - v'kharbelatehon): Like [the related verb k-r-b-l used in the verse] “and David was clothed/wrapped (mekhurbal) with a robe of fine linen” [I Chronicles 15:27].

And their trousers/tunics (וּפַטְּשֵׁיהוֹן - u'patt'sheihon): [Means] shirts/tunics (challukin) or trousers (mikhnasayim).

And their garments (וּלְבוּשֵׁיהוֹן - ul'vusheihon): [Means] other/remaining garments (sh'ar begadim).

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.

coats . . . hosen . . . hats--HERODOTUS [1.195] says that the Babylonian costume consisted of three parts: (1) wide, long pantaloons; (2) a woollen shirt; (3) an outer mantle with a girdle round it. So these are specified [GESENIUS], "their pantaloons, inner tunics (hosen, or stockings, are not commonly worn in the East), and outer mantles." Their being cast in so hurriedly, with all their garments on, enhanced the miracle in that not even the smell of fire passed on their clothes, though of delicate, inflammable material.

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

Verse 21. Their hats] This word, hat, is found only in this place in the Old Testament. The word סרבל sarbal properly means an outer garment. Herodotus, who lived about one hundred years after Daniel, says, "the dress of the Babylonians consisted of a tunic of linen reaching down to the feet; over this a tunic of woollen; and over all a white short cloak or mantle, χλανιδιον; and on their heads they wore turbans, μιτρησι." Following this, Mr. Parkhurst translates the verse thus: "Then these three men were bound [בסרבליהון besarbaleyhon] in their CLOAKS, [פמישיהון patesheyhon] their TURBANS, [וכרבלתהון vecharbelathehon] and in their UPPER (woollen) TUNICS, [ולבושיהון ulebushehon] and their UNDER (linen) TUNICS." And as, according to this interpretation, their sarbaley were their outermost garments, we see the propriety with which it is observed at Da 3:27 that these were not changed by the fire.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Here Daniel relates the miracle by which God liberated his servants. He has two parts: first, these three holy men walked untouched in the midst of the flame; and the fires consumed those attendants who east them into the furnace. The Prophet diligently enumerates whatever tends to prove the power of God. He says, since the king’s command was urgent, that is, since the king ordered in such anger the furnace to be heated, the flames devour the men who executed his orders. For in Job, (Job 18:5,) שביב, shebib, means “spark,” or the extremity of a flame. The sense of the Prophet is by no means obscure, since the extremity of the flame consumed those strong attendants by playing round them, while Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego walked through the fuel in the fire and flame. They were not in the extremity of the flame; for it is as if the Prophet had said — the king’s slaves were consumed by the very smoke, and the fire was without the slightest effect on the servants of God. Hence he says, these three fell down in the furnace of fire By saying they fell, it means they could not take care of themselves or attempt to escape; for he adds, they were bound. This might at first naturally suffocate them, till they were immediately consumed; but they remained untouched, and then walked about the furnace loose. We hereby see how conspicuous was God’s power, and how no falsehood of Satan’s could obscure it. And next, when the very points of the flame, or the fiery sparks, devour the servants, here again the deed is proved to be of God. Meanwhile, the result of the history is the preservation of these three holy men, so surprisingly beyond their expectation.

This example is set before us, to show us how nothing can be safer than to make God the guardian and protector of our life. For we ought not to expect to be preserved from every danger because we see those holy men delivered; for we ought to hope for liberation from death, if it be useful, and yet we ought not to hesitate to meet it without fear, if God so please it. But we should gather from our present narrative the sufficiency of God’s protection, if he wishes to prolong our lives, since we know our life to be precious to him; and it is entirely in his power, either to snatch us from danger, or to withdraw us to a better existence, according to his pleasure. We have an example of this in the case of Peter; for he was on one day led forth from prison, and the next day put to death. Even then God shewed his care of his servant’s life, although Peter at length suffered death. How so? Because he had finished his course. Hence, as often as God pleases, he will exert his power to preserve us; if he leads us onwards to death, we must be assured it is best for us to die, and injurious to us to enjoy life any longer. This is the substance of the instruction which we may receive from this narrative. It now follows: —

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.

(21) Their coats.—The dresses spoken of here correspond with what Herodotus tells us (i. 195) of the Babylonian costume. As far as can be determined from the etymology of the words, the “coat” was an under-clothing, which covered the whole body; the “hose” was some species of tunic—something “spread out” over the under-clothing; the “hat” (the only one of the three words of which no Hebrew root exists (see 1Ch_15:27), was a sort of cloak, used probably for State occasions only.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Then these men were bound in their coats,.... Their upper coats, cloaks, or mantles, as Aben Ezra and Jacchiades; though, according to the use of the word in the Arabic language, the "femoralia" (r) or breeches are meant:

their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments: their turbants on their heads, which were usually wore in those countries; and their stockings and shoes, and other under garments, as waistcoats and shirts; which through haste or negligence, or with design, were kept on them, to make their torment the greater; but were intended by the Lord to make the miracle the more conspicuous. According to Cocceius (s) and Bynaeus (t), the first of these words signifies the outward covering of the body, as cloaks, &c.; the second the covering of the feet, as socks, shoes, and sandals; and the third the covering of the head, as caps, turbants, helmets, &c.; the last the inner garments that were under the upper ones:

and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace; in the manner and circumstances before related.

(r) "cum femoralibus", Pagninus; so Syr. Ar.; "cum braccis suis", V. L. (s) Expos. Dict. Chald. col. 1022. rad (t) De Calceis Hebr. l. 2. c. 10. sect 4, 5, 6, 7.

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

Then these men were bound in their coats - They were seized just as they were. No time was given them for preparation; no change was made in their dress. In “autos-da-fe” of later times, it has been usual to array those who were to suffer in a peculiar dress, indicative of the fact that they were heretics, and that they deserved the flame. Here, however, the anger of the king was so great, that no delay was allowed for any such purpose, and they proceeded to execute the sentence upon them just as they were. The fact that they were thus thrown into the furnace, however, only made the miracle the more conspicuous, since not even their garments were affected by the fire. The word rendered “coats,” is in the margin rendered “mantles.” The Chaldee word (סרבלין sarbâlı̂yn) means, according to Gesenius, the long and wide pantaloons which are worn by the Orientals, from סרבל sarbēl, to cover. The Greek word used in the translation is derived from this - σαράβαρα sarabara - and the word σαρβαρίδες sarbarides is still used in modern Greek. The Chaldee word is used only in this chapter. The Vulgate renders this, cum braccis suis - hence, the word “breeches,” and “brogues.” The garment referred to, therefore, seems rather to be what covered the lower part of their person than either a coat or mantle.

Their hosen - This word was evidently designed by our translators to denote drawers, or trousers - not stockings, for that was the common meaning of the word when the translation was made. It is not probable that the word is designed to denote “stockings,” as they are not commonly worn in the East. Harmer supposes that the word here used means properly “a hammer,” and that the reference is to a hammer that was carried as a symbol of office, and he refers in illustration of this to the plates of Sir John Chardin of carvings found in the ruins of Persepolis, among which a man is represented with a hammer or mallet in each hand. He supposes that this was some symbol of office. The more common and just representation, however, is to regard this as referring to an article of dress. The Chaldee word (פטישׁ paṭṭı̂ysh) is from פטשׁ pâṭash, to break, to hammer (πατάσσω patassō); to spread out, to expand; and the noun means

(1) a hammer; Isa 41:7; Jer 23:29; Jer 50:23; and

(2) a garment, probably with the idea of its being “spread out,” and perhaps referring to a tunic or under-garment.

Compare Gesenius on the word. The Greek is, τιάραις tiarais, and so the Latin Vulgate, tiaris: the tiara, or covering for the head, turban. The probable reference, however, is to the under-garment worn by the Orientals; the tunic, not a little resembling a shirt with us.

And their hats - Margin, or “turbans.” The Chaldee word (כרבלא karbelâ') is rendered by Gesenius mantle, pallium. So the version called the “Breeches” Bible, renders it “clokes.” Coverdale renders it “shoes,” and so the Vulgate, calceamentis, sandals; and the Greek, περικνηυίσιν periknēmisin, greaves, or a garment enclosing the lower limbs; pantaloons. There is certainly no reason for rendering the word “hats” - as hats were then unknown; nor is there any evidence that it refers to a turban. Buxtorf (“Chaldee Lex.”) regards it as meaning a garment, particularly an outer garment, a cloak, and this is probably the correct idea. We should then have in these three words the principal articles of dress in which the Orientals appear, as is shown by the preceding engraving, and from the ruins of Persepolis - the large and loose trousers; the tunic, or inner garment; and the outer garment, or cloak, that was commonly thrown over all.

And their other garments - Whatever they had on, whether turban, belt, sandals, etc.

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

Coats, or various coloured bandages for the thighs, used by men and women. Aquila and Th. retain the original term, Greek: Sarabarois. Chaldee: saraballa. (Calmet) --- Caps: "tiaras." (Haydock) --- The king alone wore them upright.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

This is observable and wonderful, that the fire should not catch their garments, being the most obnoxious to it.

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

21. “Then these men were bound in their hosen [‘coats,’ Dan_3:27; rather ‘cloaks,’ or perhaps ‘trousers,’ Syr.], their tunics [margin, ‘turbans’], and their mantles, and their other garments” (R.V.). It was from the “hats” spoken of in the A.V. that George Fox drew his conclusion that no man should remove his hat in the presence of royalty (Bevan). The ancient Greek translators did not seem to know exactly what the garments were corresponding to these Aramaic words. The main point is that these articles of ordinary clothing which would naturally burn easily were preserved, as also the “other garments,” which may possibly refer to the flowing robes so common as the state dress of Babylonian officials (Meinhold).

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

Then these men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace. The LXX omits the complexity of garments, and translates, "Thus these men were bound, having their sandals, and their hats upon their heads, with their other garments, and were cast into the burning fiery furnace." It would seem that karbelatheon was either not in the text before the translator or was omitted by him. The latter hypothesis seems a hazardous one to adopt without good ground. We have no reason to accuse the Septuagint translator of this practice. Theodotion also presents signs of omission. ylib; rs is not translated, but simply transliterated, sarabaroiv. Under this word Schleusner says, "Vestis Medica sou Babylonica ad genus pertingens." Aquila, it may be not,d, also transliterates, saraballa. Theodotion"s rendering is, "Then those men were bound in their coats(?), and hats, and hosen, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace." The Peshitta does as Theodotion, anti transliterates with the change of a shin fur a samech, in regard to the first word, and instead of leboosheen, "garments," has qoobeeen, which is rendered by Castelli pileus, or g,lea, a "military cap," or a "helmet." He wrongly says that qoob"o is used to translate karbelathElon; the word used for that is nihtho. We need not go into a discussion of the various garments named here. It is to be observed that, by the time of the Septuagint and the original of the version edited and revised by Theodotion, the moaning of the terms was lost a thing hardly possible on the critical supposition that the date of Daniel is B.C. 168, if, as seems necessary to suppose from the Greek prologue to Ecclesiasticus, it was already translated into Greek by, at latest, B.C. 130. The point brought out by these garments being mentioned is in order to show the power of God manifested on them. They were all of an inflammable material, therefore emphasis was given to the miracle by this. But, further, it shows they were taken as they were, without opportunity of putting on any specially medicated robes, if such could be imagined (but see Longmans, August, 1894, reference to Basil Thomson"s" South Sea Yarns").

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

Of the different parts of clothing named, סרבּלין are not hose, short stockings, from which Hitz. concludes that the enumeration proceeds from the inner to the outer clothing. This remark, correct in itself, proves nothing as to the covering for the legs. This meaning is given to the word only from the New Persian shalwâr, which in the Arabic is sarâwîl; cf. Haug in Ew.'s bibl. Jahrbb. v. p. 162. But the word corresponds with the genuine Semitic word sirbal, which means tunica or indusium; cf. Ges. Thes.

(Note: The lxx have omitted סרבּלין in their translation. Theodot. has rendered it by σαράβαρα, and the third-named piece of dress כּרבּלן by περικνημῖδες, which the lxx have rendered by τιάρας ἐπὶ τῶν κεφαλῶν. Theodoret explains it: περικνημῖδας δὲ τὰς καλουμένας ἀναξυρίδας λέγει. These are, according to Herod. vii. 161, the αναχυρίδες, i.e., braccae, worn by the Persians περὶ τὰ σκέλεα. Regarding Σαράβαρα Theodoret remarks: ἔστι Περσικῶν περιβολαίων εἴδη. Thus Theodot. and Theodor. expressly distinguish the σαράβαρα (סרבּלין) from the περικνημῖδες; but the false interpretation of סרבּלין by breeches has given rise to the confounding of that word with כּרבּלן, and the identification of the two, the περικνημῖδες being interpreted of covering for the feet; and the Vulg. translates the passage: "cum braccis suis et tiaris et calceamentis et vestibus," while Luther has "cloaks, shoes, and hats." This confounding of the two words was authorized by the Greek scholiasts, to which the admission of the Persian shalwâr into the Arabic saravilu may have contributed. In Suidas we find the right interpretation along with the false one when he says: Σαράβαρα ἐσθὴς Περσικὴ ἔνιοι δὲ λέγουσι βρακία. Hesychius, on the other hand, briefly explains σαράβαρα by βρακία, κνημῖδες, σκελέαι. Hence the word in the forms sarabara, siravara, saravara or saraballa, sarabela, is commonly used in the middle ages for hose, and has been transferred into various modern languages; cf. Gesen. Thes. p. 971.)

p. 970, and Heb. Lex. s. v. Accordingly, סרבּלין denotes under-clothing which would be worn next the body as our shirt. פּטישׁיהון, for which the Keri uses the form פּטשׁיהון, corresponding to the Syriac petšayhūn, is explained in the Hebr. translation of the Chald. portions of Daniel by כּתנת, tunica, and is derived from פשׁט, expandit (by the transposition of the second and third radicals). Thus the Syriac word is explained by Syr. lexicographers. Theodotion's translation, τιάραι, is probably only hit upon from the similarity of the sound of the Greek πέτασος, the covering for the head worn by the ἔφηβοι. כּרבּלן are mantles, from כּרבּל, R. כּבל, to bind, to lay around, with r intercalated, which occurs Ch1 15:27 of the putting around or putting on of the מעיל (upper garment). לבוּשׁיהון are the other pieces of clothing (Aben Ezra and others), not mantles. For that לבוּשׁ was specially used of over-clothes (Hitz.) cannot be proved from Job 24:7 and Kg2 10:22. We have here, then, the threefold clothing which, according to Herodotus, i. 195, the Babylonians wore, namely, the סרבּלין, the κιθῶν ποδηνεκὴς λίνεος, the פּטישׁא worn above it, ἄλλον εἰρίνεον κιθῶνα, and the כּרבּלא thrown above that, χλανίδιον λευκόν; while under the word לבוּשׁיהון the other articles of clothing, coverings for the feet and the head, are to be understood.

(Note: With the setting aside of the false interpretation we have disposed of the objection against the historical character of the narrative which v. Leng. and Hitz. have founded on the statement of Herodotus l.c., that the Babylonians wore no hose, but that they were first worn by the Persians, who adopted them from the Medes.)

The separate articles of clothing, consisting of easily inflammable material, are doubtlessly mentioned with reference to the miracle that followed, that even these remained unchanged (Dan 3:27) in the fiery furnace. In the easily inflammable nature of these materials, namely, of the fine κιθῶν ποδηνεκὴς λίνεος, we have perhaps to seek the reason on account of which the accused were bound in their clothes, and not, as Theodoret and most others think, in the haste with which the sentence against them was carried out.

Keil & Delitzsch — Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (1861–1891) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API. (Old Testament only.)

turbans

A turban is a head covering made of wrapped cloth.

blazing furnace

This is a large room filled with a hot fire. See how you translated this in Daniel 3:6.

Because the king's command was strictly followed

This can be stated in active form. AT: "Because the men did exactly what the king commanded" (See: Active or Passive)

translationWords

robe

tunic

king

command

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

these men [as translated,] these men.

were bound in their cloaks They were bound in the garments in which they enwrapped themselves.

their trousers, their robes types of royal raiment that they had; and although they were going forth to be judged before Nebuchadnezzar regarding their death sentence, they did not change their clothes to humble their greatness. From here the Sages learned that even in times of danger, a person should not change from the ruling position to which he has become accustomed.

their robes Aram. וְכַרְבְּלָתְהוֹן. There is a word similar to this (in I Chron. 15: 27): “And David was clothed (מְכֻרְבָּל).

and they were cast into the burning, fiery furnce [as translated,] and they were cast into the burning, fiery furnace.

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.