“Son of God” or “son of the gods” ? What is the proper translation of Daniel 3:25 ?

The “King James Only vs. Modern translations issue” has always been close to my heart considering that I came out of the King James Only movement. After careful study of the facts and finding out that the position of the movement is not only filled with inconsistencies half truths and even out right lies, I decided I had enough.  Since then I have made it some sort of a personal crusade not only study the issue in depth but to answer questions related to the issue in order that other believers might also be enlightened.

One of the favourite accusations that the KJV Only movement throws out to those who use modern translations are the alleged omissions, additions, revisions that modern translations commit when compared to the King James Version. Among the most favourite Bible verse they use is Daniel 3:25.

The following is an actual question asked of me in Facebook in relation to Daniel 3:25:

Your favorite version is NASB. So if that’s your favorite,do you believe NASB’s phrase in Daniel 3:25that the fourth person is like a son of the gods?

In KJV,”the fourth person is like the Son of God” and that is in reference in the fourth gospel John, Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

By the way , I just couldn’t resist posting this picture here, I find it so funny. (Jesus or Thor ? hahaha Son of God or son of the gods ?) Nevertheless take note this is a serious question. (I just found this picture posted by a friend in Facebook. I am so sorry I could not give attribution for this to anybody)

Anyway, Here is my response:

Excellent question as the response to this is both a privilege and opportunity to demonstrate the importance of the appreciating the nuances of Bible translations.

The question is, why does the NASB and other translation translate it as “. . . . like the son of the gods” while the KJV translates it as “. . . like the Son of God” ? Which is the most appropriate translation ? (A side question is asked and I shall address this in a side note)

To properly answer the question consider the following:

1.) The Aramaic word (Daniel is written in Hebrew and Aramaic with the Aramic sandwiched somwhere between chapter 2 to 7) used for “God” in Daniel 3:25 is the word “elahin” In the actual Aramaic the phrase in dispute reads as “bar-elahin” (“bar” which means “son of”)

2.) “elahin” is a masculine plural noun, which means “gods.” Such word is often used to describe the pagan gods during that time. In contrast the Hebrew God, the God of Daniel, Shadrach, Mishach and Abednego is referred to as just “elah” or “elaha” (with the definite article attached) the singular form of “elahin”

3.) Consider the following verses below in support of #2 (I have attached a screenshot of how it is rendered in the Aramaic to highlight the difference)

a. Daniel 2:47 – “The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God (elaha) is a God (elah) of gods (elahin), and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret”

b. Dan. 3:17 – “If it be so, our God (elaha) whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.”

So what should be the proper translation of Daniel 3:25 considering the above?

Argument #1 – Since the Aramaic rendering is “bar-elahin” and “elahin” is in the plural form hence the phrase should be translated as “son of the gods”

Argument #2 – As to who is making the statement should be considered here. People interpret events base on their cultural and religious biases. Nebuchadnezar was a pagan king who had a different idea about supreme being and deities. Considering that Chaldeans believed in families of gods, it is logical to assume that the words he uttered to describe the 4th person in the fiery furnace is a “son of the gods” as such phrase (according to the IVP OT Background Commentary) represents a common Semitic expression for identifying a supernatural being

Argument #3 – Most Bible commentators and scholars agree that the phrase should be rendered as “son of the gods” not “son of God.”

Argument #4 – The original KJV 1611 writes Dan. 3:25 as “sonne of God” without capitalizing “son.” No marginal notes has been provided by the KJV translators on this aspect so we are left to speculate as to why they capitalized “Son of God” in other instances where the phrase occurs in the KJV 1611 but in Daniel 3:25 they did not capitalize “son.” (Example of this is Mathew 27:54 and John 19:7 where we see the word “son” as capitalized) Perhaps they are unsure of its translation? We do not know, but this is something to be considered.

Side note: I am not saying that the pre-incarnate Christ definitely did not appear in Daniel 3:25. Several well known theologians such as Jonathan Edwards, Mathew Henry and even the well beloved Charles Spurgeon and Christian tradition itself typically identifies the fourth man in the fiery furnace as the pre-incarnate Christ. Yes it is possible. Others say it is an angel. (I do know for sure that it was definitely not Thor :-D) Commentators and Bible scholars are really divided on this matter. My personal take on this, I rely on the evidence and since there is nothing in Scripture that says with definitiveness that it is the pre-incarnate Christ or it is not, hence for me I leave this as an open question and regard this as something that belongs to the “secret things of the Lord” and definitely an addition to the million questions that I would like to ask the Lord himself when we see him face to face.

Conclusion: Again the main issue here is not whether or not it is the pre-incarnate Christ that is the 4th man in the fiery furnace. The main issue here is what is the proper translation of the controversial phrase in Daniel 3:25 that varies between the KJV and modern translations. With the above arguments, I submit that “son of the gods” is a more proper rendering of this text.