Reader's Guidebook For Daniel 2,1-49

Readers Guidebook for Daniel 2:1-49 Loren Lineberry, 2014
[1]

Introduction

The purpose of the Guidebook is to help both the specialist and the non-specialist read the Book of
Daniel more closely. For the specialist, by whom I mean those with some skill in Hebrew and Aramaic, the
Guidebook is intended to enrich the reading of the text. For the non-specialist, by whom I mean those with
no acquaintance with Hebrew or Aramaic, the Guidebook intends to offer the benefits of a close reading of
the text in language that is, hopefully, clear and accurate.

For both the specialist and the non-specialist, the Guidebook is especially intended for the
preacher. It is hoped that the Guidebook will augment whatever helps the preacher already has at his or her
disposal.

The grammatical analysis of the text will provide identifications of key terms and constructions:
prepositional phrases, genitive constructions, verbal parsing, subordinating conjunctions, and other terms
and forms as they arise. While not every form will be parsed, it is hoped that those that are chosen will aid
in reading the text in an informed manner.

The syntactical matters addressed in the Guidebook are among the Guidebooks more important
benefits. This is on three levels.

First, there is the matter of the syntax in the sense of how the text fits together. This is the more or
less traditional task of syntactical study and it is offered in the Guidebook. To this end, each paragraph or
unit of text will be laid out in terms of the paragraph sense. This is a schematic of how the text fits
together. It is intended to aid in the expository preaching of the text of Daniel.

Second, there is the matter of the syntactical-semantic thrust of the various stems in Hebrew and
Aramaic. To make an extremely complicated matter simple is beyond the scope of the Guidebook; at the
same time, the seven major stems signal nuances of transivity, causation, and reflexive or reciprocal
relationships between the subject and the action or situation depicted in the verb. These nuances are often
quite useful in understanding what a sentence is about. Accordingly, one of the significant uses of the
Guidebook for the reader is this appreciation of verbal stems.

Third, there is the matter of paragraph identification and punctuation. While the Guidebook is
fully aware that the punctuation and paragraph markings in the Masoretic text are not inspired, they are
useful in demarcating the larger paragraph units and the sentences that make up the paragraphs.

The lexical section will offer glosses for the more important terms in a sentence. This feature of
the Guidebook is intended to be of particular use to the non-specialist, who may not have access to these
tools. To be sure, the preacher who would seek to deliver an expository sermon from a paragraph unit in
Daniel would do well to know what the key terms may mean. To this end, the Guidebook makes available
entries from the standard lexicons: Brown-Driver-Briggs, KoNhler-Baumgartner, Holladay, The
Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament and entries from The New International Dictionary of Old
Testament Theology and Exegesis. Where a footnoted entry has an italicized r [r], this tells the reader
that word in question is specifically cited in the lexical entry consulted.

The paragraph sense, as noted above, will aid the reader in grasping the context for each individual
utterance. This is another major effort of the Guidebook, since a word or a verse derives meaning from the
immediate context in which it is found, the paragraph. As far as the preaching of the text goes, the
paragraph sense is intended to help the preacher avoid taking a sentence out of context.

The genre of the various units of the Book of Daniel will be considered. The paragraph units will
be identified in terms of genre, which, in turn, helps the reader know what to expect content-wise from the
paragraph. For example, it is useful to know that a paragraph contains history as opposed to, say,
prophecy. In either case, the rules of the reading game differ; we expect to hear different kinds of messages
from different genres.


[2]

General Introduction to Daniel 2

Structure

The structure of Daniel 2 utilizes an organizational technique familiar to readers of the Hebrew
Bible: the Chiasm. Without going overboard with definitions and discussions, the chiasm is a structural
and expressive technique that is used to bind together shorter or longer ranges of text. In this case, the units
of Daniel 2 are structured so as to express the inversion of key events in Daniel 2. Notice in the following
structural proposal for Daniel 2 how events are reversed, thanks to what happens in the middle of the
chiasm.

2:1-2 King Nebuchadnezzar is disturbed by a dream [pg. 3-9]
2:3-13 The failure of the kings advisors to reveal and explain the dream [pg. 10-33]
2:14-16 The report of Daniels intervention [centerpiece] [pg. 34-40]
2:17-24 The report of Yahwehs revelation [centerpiece] [pg. 41-72]
2:25-45 The success of Daniel in revealing and explaining the dream [pg. 73-131]
2:46-49 King Nebuchadnezzar praises God [pg. 132-42]

Reflections on Daniel 2 [pg. 143-45]

The reader will note the reversals in the outer frame of the chiasm: disturbance [2:1-2] turns to
praise [2:46-49]. How this happens, at the human level, is teased out in the inner frame: where the kings
best advisors fail [2:3-13], Daniel succeeds [2:25-45]. Why Daniel can succeed when all about him are
failing is unpacked in the centerpiece of the chiasm: Daniel has the faith to intervene [2:14-16], and
Yahweh explains all [2:17-24].

Genre

Clearly, Daniel 2 is set in the arena of the royal court. The chapter begins and ends with the
speeches of the king of the royal court, although the turnaround is markedly apparent. Moreover, Daniel 2
features the assembly of the kings royal advisors [2:2].

Accordingly, we may propose that the genre of Daniel 2 is a Court Tale. That is, Daniel 2 is the
report of events set in the royal court, written and preserved for edification.
1

The reader can appreciate the focal point of the edification in Daniel 2 by noting the structure.
That is, Daniel 2 intends that the reader understands that Divine revelation is necessary, even in the world
of high level politics. To be sure, the reader is invited to give particular attention to the centerpiece of
Daniel 2, the content of what Yahweh reveals to Daniel: the absolute sovereignty of Yahweh over human
history, including human political history. Indeed, Daniel 2:17-24 may well be the thesis statement for the
entire book of Daniel: in spite of maneuverings and blunders of political power-players, God is in control
[2:20-21]. In this sense, Daniel 2 is exceptionally edifying.

1
See Rolf Knierim and Gene Tucker, ed., The Forms of Old Testament Literature, vol. XX,
Daniel: with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 106.

[3]

Daniel 2:1-2 Nebuchadnezzar is assailed by dreams

Translation (2:1) In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar was tormented
by a dream; as a result, his state of mind was deeply troubled, so much so that sleep fled. (2:2) So, the king
called for the magicians, the conjurers, the sorcerers, and the astrologers to explain to the king his dream;
accordingly, they came and stood before him.

Paragraph sense

(i) [Temporal statement] In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar,
(ii) [Major event in the report] Nebuchadnezzar was tormented by a dream;
(iii) [As a result of (ii)] as a result, his state of mind was deeply troubled,
(iv) [Explication of (iii)] so much so that sleep fled.
(v) [A further result of (iii-iv)] So, the king called for the magicians, the conjurers, the sorcerers,
and the astrologers to explain to the king his dream;
(vi) [As a consequence of (v)] accordingly, they came and stood before the king.

The reader will note the items that are in bold type. These seem to be the focal point, the sense, of
the paragraph: the dreams and the complete mind-boggling influence they had on the king. To be sure, the
function of this opening paragraph is to set up the problem for the remainder of the chapter. Additionally,
the paragraph assembles some of the key players in the chapter.

Genre

The genre of this first paragraph appears to be a report of a single event set in the second year of
the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. The purpose of the report would seem to be to situate Nebuchadnezzars
dreams in real time and real history, relating details of this event in the life of Nebuchadnezzar.
2

Daniel 2:1a In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar is a temporal statement that is
punctuated with a z~qf q~tn, signaling a slight pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: the temporal line opens with a prepositional phrase
3
in the second year followed
by a second prepositional phrase
4
of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.

Syntax: Daniel 2:1 is opened with a disjunctive waw, which the Guidebook does not translate. At
the same time, the conjunction must be accounted for and explained. When a disjunctive waw is prefixed
to a non-verbal lexeme, the construction introduces a circumstantial clause, functioning to provide
background information to the storyline. In this case, the background information provides the timing and
the key player in the storyline.
5

2
Rolf Knierim and Eugene Tucker, The Forms of Old Testament Literature, vol. xvi, Isaiah 1-39
by Marvin A. Sweeney (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 536.

3
In the second year glosses [numeral, fm, dual] .> [disjunctive waw,
preposition, noun, fm, sg, construct]. For the discrepancies with chapter 1, see the commentaries,
especially Baldwin.

4
In the reign of Nebuchadnezzar glosses l.->. [proper name] ---
[preposition, noun, fm, sg, construct].

5
For the syntax of the circumstantial clause, see J.C.L. Gibson, Davidsons Introductory Hebrew
Syntax-Grammar (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994), 135; Francis I. Andersen, The Sentence in Biblical
Hebrew (The Hague: Mouton Publishers, 1980), 78; Bruce Waltke and Michael OConnor, Introduction to
Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 39.2.3b [hereafter abbreviated IBHS].

[4]

The syntax of the prepositional phrase in the second year signals a temporal function. Indeed,
the preposition b
e
is often used temporally.
6
In the second year of his reign would place these events
around 603 BC.

Lexical: Daniel 2:1 mentions the reign [malk|t] of Nebuchadnezzar. The nominal form reign
references the period of governmental activity of Nebuchadnezzar.
7
The upshot is that the noun reign
places a slight emphasis on the activity of governance.
8

Daniel 2:1b Nebuchadnezzar was tormented by a dream is a line that is punctuated with an
àtnach, pointing to the major pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: the line opens with the finite verb
9
dreamed followed by the subject of the
sentence Nebuchadnezzar and then the cognate accusative dreams. The Guidebook seeks to smooth
out the translation of the finite verb and cognate accusative for reasons that will be made clear presently.

Syntax: the syntax of the cognate accusative should be appreciated by the reader. In form, the
cognate accusative features a finite verb with direct object from the same root word.
10
The function of the
form seems to be to strengthen the verbal idea of the composite construction.
11
Clearly, then, the writer
intends to rhetorically underline the intensity of this dream experience upon this head of state.

The noun glossed a dream is actually a plural form. In this case, the plural denotes an indefinite
singular,
12
which more or less generalizes the dream experience.

Lexical: owing to the finite verb with the cognate accusative, the Guidebook attempts to bring out
the intensity of the dream experience by translating was tormented by a dream.

6
Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996;
second edition), 241; Christo H.J. van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naud0 and Jan H. Kroeze, A Biblical
Hebrew Reference Grammar (Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 2000), 39.6.2; E. Kautzsch, ed.,
Gesenius Hebrew Grammar, revised by A.E. Cowley (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), 119 [hereafter
abbreviated GKC].

7
William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 199; see also Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and
Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament; revised by Walter Baumgartner and Johann Stamm, vol. 1 (Leiden:
Brill, 2001), 593 [hereafter abbreviated KB
1
for volume 1 [.-] and KB
2
for volume 2 [-]; Francis
Brown, S.R. Driver, Charles Briggs, and Wilhelm Gesenius, The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius
Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers; reprint, 1979), 574-75 [hereafter
abbreviated BDB].

8
Willem A. VanGemeren, ed., The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and
Exegesis, malk|t, (H 4887) by Philip J. Nel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001; CD-ROM); hereafter
abbreviated NIDOTTE.

9
Dreamed dreams glosses =-W [noun, ms, pl] -W [Qal, perfect, 3
rd
, ms].

10
IBHS 10.2.1g.

11
GKC 117 p-q; see also Paul Joqon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 2 vols., translated by T.
Muraoka (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1966), 125 q [hereafter abbreviated J-M].

12
GKC 124 o.

[5]

In the Ancient Near East, a dream could be revelation from either a god or an evil spirit. In this
case, as was often the case, this particular dream had some odd traits to it that demanded interpretation.
13

At the same time, the use of this same collocation dream dreams is used elsewhere in the Old
Testament of revelatory dreams sent by Yahweh [Genesis 37:5, 9; 40:5, 8; 41:11, 15; Judges 7:13; Joel
3:1]. Accordingly, by using this collocation, the writer of Daniel may be indicating that, ultimately,
Yahweh is behind this dream, even to a pagan monarch who had been instrumental in exiling the people of
God.

Daniel 2:1c as a result, his state of mind was deeply disturbed is a sentence that is punctuated with
a z~qf q~tn, signaling the next pause after the àtnach.

Grammar: Daniel 2:1c opens with the finite verb
14
as a result was deeply disturbed
followed by the object of the action of the verb his state of mind.

Syntax: the syntax of 2:1c is shaped by the waw consecutive imperfect, which signals a
consequence of the finite verb tormented in 2:1b.
15
Moreover, the syntactical-semantic thrust of the
Hithpael stem should be taken into account. In 2:1c, the Hithpael stem tells us that Nebuchadnezzars state
of mind is transformed into the effected state signaled by the root deeply disturbed.
16

Lexical: the reader will be interested in the nuance of the verb deeply disturbed and the
recipient of the angst generated by the dream his state of mind.

The verb translated deeply disturbed [p~!am] comes from a semantic field of terms for confusion
and/or agitation.
17
The sense of this verb communicates to feel troubled.
18
To be sure, if the LXX
translator is any guide, the sense of the verb is along the lines of to cause confusion, to trouble the mind, to
cause agitation.
19
When we factor in the force of the Hithpael stem, then one has the impression that
Nebuchadnezzar was utterly stunned by the force of this dream experience.

This stunning dream experience plagued the kings ruach, his state of mind. Most translations go
with a more or less wooden gloss for ruach, such as spirit, but for the modern reader this doesnt help
much. In the Hebrew Bible, the ruach can be a general term for ones senses or ones mind, or ones
intellectual frame of reference.
20
Holladay places ruach within the anthropological framework with mind,
disposition or temper.
21
Albertz and Westermann go a bit further and claim that ruach is an

13
See Gary V. Smith, ch~lam (H 2731), in NIDOTTE.

14
The finite verb in the line is [waw consecutive imperfect, Hithpael, 3
rd
, fm, sg].

15
See IBHS 33.2.1a-b; Gibson 78.

16
IBHS 26.2.

17
See Confusion, agitation, in NIDOTTE.

18
KB
2
, 952r; BDB, 821r; Holladay, 295r.

19
The LXX has tarass [to cause confusion, to trouble the mind, to agitate, to disturb, to be in
disorder (George Henry Liddell, Robert Scott and Henry Stuart Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1968), 1548 [hereafter abbreviated LSJ].

20
KB
2
, 1199.

21
Holladay, 334.


[6]

anthropological term that pinpoints the center of human volition and action.
22
If ruach is read in this way,
then the reader may infer that this power-politician was shaken to his core by this dream experience. To his
inner depths, this man was seized by angst over this dumbfounding occurrence.

Daniel 2:1d so much so that sleep fled is the final sentence in the verse.

Grammar: Daniel 2:1d opens with the subject of the verb
23
his sleep followed by the verb
24

fled and ending with a prepositional phrase from him.

Syntax: the syntactical relationship between 2:1c and 2:1d is held together by the disjunctive waw
that opens 2:1d. The so-called disjunctive waw can signal a result of the previous line, as it does here.
25

The Guidebook translates result with so much so that.

Lexical: of lexical interest are the associations in the Old Testament attached to sleep. n>
[sleep] is used, as in this context, as a figure of peace and personal security, or the lack of it.
26
The person
of sound judgment and discernment can expect sleep that is sweet [Proverbs 3:24]; while those who are
wicked experience a troubled sleep [Proverbs 4:26]. The Psalmist uses sleep as evidence of Yahwehs
sustaining protection [Psalm 3:5-6]. More immediate to Nebuchadnezzars cultural setting is the proverb
that states: woe and anxiety create only bad dreams.
27

There is some doubt concerning how to translate the verb sleep fled. While most English
versions go with this gloss, or something like it, there are others that translate sleep overcame him. As far
as the lexicons go, both KoNhler-Baumgartner and Holladay offer to go by, to have gone, or in this case
simply to flee.
28
BDB opts for to be done, finished or gone, where Daniel 2:1d uses the Niphal of the verb
[h~y>] to claim that sleep left the king.
29
The Septuagint translator reads the verb in the sense of
wakefulness. The net effect is that the Guidebook will tentatively offer sleep fled, implying that the dreams
were so disturbing that the king was losing sleep.

22
Albertz and Westermann, ruach, in TLOT
3
, 1211.

23
His sleep renders =. [disjunctive waw, noun, fm, sg, construct, with a 3
rd
, ms, suffix].

24
Fled actually translates the verb with the following prepositional phrase; the verb is
~~. [Niphal, perfect, 3
rd
, fm, sg] and the prepositional phrase is -. Literally, the sentence
reads his sleep went out from him.

25
Van der Merwe 40.8.

26
For these associations with n>, see Esther 6:1; Psalm 76:6; Proverbs 3:24; 4:16; Daniel 6:19.

27
See D.J. Wiseman, ed., Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, Daniel by Joyce Baldwin
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1978), 86.

28
KB
1
, 244r; Holladay, 79r.

29
BDB, 227r.

[7]

Daniel 2:2a So, the king called for the magicians, the conjurers, the sorcerers, and the
astrologers is a sentence that is punctuated with a z~qf q~tn, signaling a break in the reading of the line
before the next major pause.

Grammar: the grammar of the utterance is basically: verb-subject-object. The verbal element is
composed of two action words
30
called for followed by the subject of the sentence the king and then
the objects
31
magicians, conjurers, sorcerers, and astrologers.

Syntax: syntactically, Daniel 2:2a is the result of 2:1b [assailed by dreams]; thus, the king calls
for his advisors in such matters.
32

The syntax of the finite verb followed by the infinitive construct is an example of an infinitive
used as a verbal complement of a finite verb, thus completing the sense of the finite verb.
33
In this case, the
net effect of the construction is to underline the summons [q~r~] implicit in the call.

Lexical: of obvious lexical import is the identity of these various advisors who were summoned
before the king.

The magicians [chartm] are probably that class of advisors who are modeled along the lines of
the Egyptian reader-priests, schooled in the art of occult knowledge. This noun [chartm] appears ten
times in the Hebrew Bible. Outside of the two references in Daniel, all of the others are in Genesis and
Exodus, referencing the chartm/magicians of Egypt.
34
In the Exodus material, the chartm/magician is
associated with occult practices [Exodus 7:11, 22; 8:3, 14 (failure)]. BDB identifies the
chartm/magicians as those who possess occult knowledge.
35
John Collins notes that chartm/magicians
is a term of Egyptian origin, identifying Egyptian priests who were scientists trained in the ability to
interpret, among other things, dreams.
36
The function of these scientist/priests in the Babylonian court
included divination and omen interpretation.
37

The conjurers [a~p] are another class of high level royal court advisors. The noun [a~p]
is an Akkadian loanword from ~ipu again indicating those who were expert in reading and interpreting
strange signs. In effect, the a~p/conjurers were incantation priests who were part of the diplomatic

30
The verbal element of the sentence is a finite verb . [Qal, waw consecutive
imperfect, 3
rd
, ms] followed by an infinitive construct .- [Qal, infinitive construct].

31
Those who were summoned were: W- [preposition, noun, ms, pl, magicians]
.- [conjunctive waw, preposition, noun, ms, pl, conjurers] --
[conjunctive waw, preposition, noun, ms, pl, sorcerers] O-- [conjunctive waw,
preposition, noun, ms, pl, astrologers].

32
For the waw consecutive imperfect used to signal a result of a perfect aspect verb, see IBHS
33.2.1a,b; Gibson 78.

33
IBHS 36.2.3b; J-M 124 o.

34
Genesis 41:8, 24 [Joseph story]; Exodus 7:11, 22; 8:3, 14, 15; 9:11
2
.

35
BDB, 355r.

36
John J. Collins, Daniel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 138.

37
Ibid.


[8]

divination team in royal court life.
38
The Aramaic cognate gets considerable play in the Aramaic section of
Daniel [2:10, 27; 4:4; 5:7, 11, 15].

The sorcerers [k~ap] point to a class of professionals who used incantations and spells to
manipulate natural powers and influence outcomes.
39
The practice of these k~ap/sorcerers included
spells, incantations, the use of charms and amulets, and special rituals.
40
The Hebrew Bible mentions the
k~ap and roundly condemns the practice [Exodus 22:17 (death); Deuteronomy 18:10; 2 Kings 9:22; 2
Chronicles 33:6 (evil); Isaiah 47:9, 12; Jeremiah 27:9; Micah 5:11 (fortune tellers); Nahum 3:4; Malachi
3:5]. In the Old Testament, this term is often glossed witchcraft.

Finally, the astrologers [kaVdTm] were those whose expertise included extensive knowledge of
Babylonian dream manuals. These dream manuals contained lists and records of specific kinds of dreams
along with their outcomes. Joyce Baldwin describes these manuals and their use:
41

These experts in dreams worked on the principle that dreams and their
sequel followed an empirical law, which, given sufficient data, could be
established. The dream manuals, of which several examples have come
to light, consist accordingly of historical dreams and the events that
followed them, arranged systematically for easy reference. Since these
books had to cover every possible eventuality, they became
inordinately long; only the expert could find his way through them, and
even he had to know the dream to begin with before he could search for
the nearest possible parallel.

The upshot is this: Nebuchadnezzar is pulling out all the stops. He has assembled the best and the
brightest of his top advisors in order to explain the meaning of his very disconcerting dream experience.
Obviously, these advisors were central to Babylonian religious and political life.
42
More to the point,
Tremper Longman contemporizes the status of these men, noting that These people were the political
consultants, trend spotters, and religious gurus of the day.
43

We noted above the parallel situation with the Joseph story in Genesis 41. There, as here in
Daniel 2, the best that the royal court has to offer in terms of explanations of phenomena and events simply
falls short of the mark. The reader of Daniel 2:2 should appreciate this assemblage of court advisors as a
prelude to their failure to understand and explain. In the case of Daniel 2, these top advisors are a foil for
the wisdom and Divine revelation that will come through Daniel.

38
Louis Hartman and Alexander Di Lella, The Book of Daniel (New Haven: Anchor Bible, 2005;
paperback), 131.

39
See Malcolm J.A. Horsnell, k~ap, in NIDOTTE.

40
Ibid.

41
Baldwin, 87.

42
John D.W. Watts and James W. Watts, The Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 30, Daniel by John
Goldingay (Nashville: Nelson, 1989), 46.

43
Tremper Longman, John H. Walton, Robert Hubbard and Andrew Dearman, ed., The NIV
Application Commentary, Tremper Longman, Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 77.

[9]

Daniel 2:2b to explain to the king his dream is an utterance that is punctuated with an àtnach,
signaling the major break in the reading of the line. As noted above, Daniel 2:2a has a slight pause
indicated at the end of that utterance.

Grammar: the utterance opens with the verbal component
44
to explain followed by the
indirect object to the king and then the direct object of the infinitive his dream.

Syntax: the syntax of 2:2b is shaped by the syntactical function of the infinitive construct. As is
often the case with the infinitive construct, the construction functions to signal the purpose of the kings
summons [2:2a].
45

Lexical: the lexical sense of the action word explain includes the syntactical-semantic nuance
of the Hiphil stem of the verb [n~gad]. In this case, the stem is causative;
46
the king has convened this
conclave so that his advisors can provide an explanation of his dream experience.
47

Paragraph summary

The reader is confronted with what purports to be an historical event in the life and reign of
Nebuchadnezzar. As noted in a footnote on 2:1a, there are curiosities about the dating of the event in the
second year of Nebuchadnezzar. Regardless of how one harmonizes these discrepancies, or doesnt
harmonize for that matter, the fact remains that the writer must have intended to communicate some
historical footing for this event.

As a matter of the history of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, the monarch was overwhelmed by
dream experiences. At one level, this is the problem that is set up for his advisors. He suffers emotionally
and physically, experiencing deep angst over this dream experience. His torment may well have been fed
by his assumptions concerning the source of the dream. That is, if the origin of the dream was a god, then
the dream might portend benefit; if, however, the dream originated with an evil spirit, then the message
might contain doom. Ambiguity concerning the source feeds the kings torment, fear that goes to the very
depths of his being.

At another level, the dream experience assembles the key players in this historical drama. The plot
in Daniel 2:1-2 opens with the monarchs advisors confronted with a problem that, on the surface, they
seemed to be completely willing to tackle. Some initial optimism is suggested by the impressive cadre of
specialists the king summoned. In one way or another, these men represent the best and the brightest
pagan/polytheistic cabinet members of Nebuchadnezzars day. The reader is alerted to the impending
confrontation between the gods and Yahweh. The optimism will soon turn to desperateness over delivering
what the king demands of his entourage.

44
The infinitive is -~- [prefixed preposition, Hiphil, infinitive construct].

45
For this use of the infinitive construct, see IBHS 36.2.3c; Gibson 107.

46
IBHS 27.4b.

47
KB
1
, 666.

[10]

Daniel 2:3-13 The Failure of the Kings Advisors to Reveal and Interpret the Dream

Structure

Daniel 2:3-13 is structured as a series of dialogues between Nebuchadnezzar and his advisors:

First dialogue Daniel 2:3-4 The king presents the problem
Nebuchadnezzar 2:3
Advisors 2:4

Second dialogue Daniel 2:5-7 The king clarifies what he wants
Nebuchadnezzar 2:5-6
Advisors 2:7

Third dialogue Daniel 2:8-11 The king and his advisors are at an impasse
Nebuchadnezzar 2:8-9
Advisors 2:10-11

Historical conclusion Daniel 2:12-13 The outcome: Death
Nebuchadnezzars anger 2:12-13

Genre

The genre of Daniel 2:3-13 is clearly dialogue, an exchange of speech between two parties each in
response to the other.
48
Indeed, this dialogue builds to a climax in 2:12-13 [the items in bold plot the
buildup to tension]. With the kings death sentence hanging over every advisor in the kingdom, including
presumably Daniel and friends, the plot reaches a critical point. From 2:12-13 forward, Daniel and
especially Yahweh will emerge as the focal points of Daniel 2. The reader should read for and appreciate
the tension that builds to its climax in 2:12-13.

First dialogue: the king presents the real problem for his advisors, 2:3-4

Translation (2:3) Then, the king said to them, I had a dream and my mind is disturbed trying to
understand the dream. (2:4) So, the astrologers spoke to the king in Aramaic; O king, may you live
forever! Relate the dream to your servants, and the interpretation we will declare.

Paragraph sense

(i) [Chronological statement] Then, the king said to them, I had a dream
(ii) [Consequence of (i)] and my mind is disturbed from trying to understand the dream
(iii) [Response] Then, the astrologers spoke to the king in Aramaic;
(iv) [First part of response] O king, live forever!
(v) [Request responding to (i-ii)] Relate the dream to your servants,
(vi) [Commitment] and the interpretation we will declare.

The reader may discern from noting the areas highlighted in bold that the dream and the effects of
the dream are the focal point of the paragraph. On one hand, the dream disconcerts Nebuchadnezzar, and
on the other hand the dreams interpretation is the promise to the king.

48
Sweeney, 518.


[11]

Nebuchadnezzar, 2:3

Daniel 2:3a Then, the king said to them, I had a dream is an utterance from the king that is
punctuated with an àtnach, signaling a major pause in the reading of the opening dialogue.

Grammar: the sentence opens with the account of what the king did, fronting the verb
49
, the
addressees, and the subject then, the king said to them. From here, the sentence tells us what the king
said initially, fronting the object
50
a dream followed by the verb I had.
51

Syntax: the syntax of Daniel 2:3a is shaped by the waw consecutive imperfect, which functions to
carry forward the thread of the discourse; this is the next event in the sequence of events.
52

The syntax of the word order in the kings opening speech a dream I had serves to reactivate
and remind the reader of the focus of the utterance this dream.
53
From the kings point of view, the
dream is the preoccupation for the moment.

Lexical: the king affirms that he dreamed a dream, or, as the Guidebook translates I had a
dream. The same phrase is used by Pharaoh in Genesis 41:15 under pretty much the same circumstances.
54

At the very least, the writer of Daniel is harkening back to Egypt, where they too were out of their depth in
interpreting dreams.

Daniel 2:3b and my mind is disturbed trying to understand the dream is the conclusion of the
kings opening speech.

Grammar: the utterance opens with the verb
55
and is disturbed followed by the subject
my mind with an infinitive clause
56
from trying to understand the dream.

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:3b is to lift out the temporal and logical outcome of
2:3a for the dreamer.
57

The syntax of the infinitive clause teases out the content of a mental process mentioned in the
main verb and subject.
58

49
The verb that opens 2:3a is . [waw consecutive imperfect, Qal, 3
rd
, ms, sg].

50
Dream glosses =-W [noun, ms, sg].

51
The verb is -W [Qal, perfect, 1
st
, cs]; literally I dreamed a dream.

52
See IBHS 33.2.1c.

53
For fronting, see Van der Merwe 47.2.

54
See also Genesis 37:9; 40:5; 41:11 for the phrase [verb + object] referencing the Joseph story.

55
The verb is [waw consecutive imperfect, Niphal, 3
rd
, fm, sg].

56
The infinitive clause has an infinitive - [preposition, Qal, infinitive construct] with
the direct object of the infinitive =-W~ [definite article, noun, ms, sg]. [mark of the
accusative].

57
For the consequential/temporal function of the waw consecutive imperfect following a perfect
aspect verb, see IBHS 32.1.3e; GKC 111 a.


[12]

Lexical: the term used for mind ruach has already been discussed in 2:1c. The use in this line
teases out the depth and nature of the mental agitation of the king.

The main verb in 2:3b has also been discussed in 2:1c. In that discussion of p~am, we noted that
the verb describes a state of mental confusion that basically stunned the king. This verb occurs in Daniel
only in 2:1, 3.

The import of the specification of the mental agitation is significant on two grounds. First, we
have noted that the syntax of the infinitive clause signals the content of the mental disturbance. As we shall
note presently, the specific nature of the mental angst concerns understanding. The point is that the king is
disturbed from trying to understand the dream, not from trying to remember it.
59

Second, the lexical thrust of the verb y~da! points to an effort to discern or to find out and
discern.
60
The cerebral gist of the verb may also be nuanced in the sense of to know by reflection, to have
understanding or simply to understand.
61
The upshot is that the king remembered the dream, but he did not
understand what it meant.

Astrologers, 2:4

Daniel 2:4a Then, the astrologers spoke to the king in Aramaic is a sentence that is punctuated
with an àtnach, signaling a major break in the reading of the line.

Grammar: the sentence opens with the verb
62
then spoke followed by the subject of the
verb the astrologers with the designation of the addressee to the king and then the closing
prepositional phrase in Aramaic.

Syntax: the syntactical relationship of 2:4a to 2:3a [then, the king said] is simply to carry forward
the thread of the dialogue.
63

The text stipulates that the astrologers spoke to the king in Aramaic. This shift in languages will
remain until the end of chapter 7.

On the nature of this Aramaic, Franz Rosenthal notes that it was an international language
understood by high Assyrian and Jewish officials but not by the common people of Jerusalem. This
Official Aramaic supplanted all other forms of Aramaic from the 8
th
century BC on. Finally, this Official
Aramaic is the Aramaic preserved in the Bible.
64

58
Van der Merwe 20.1.3 (i) notes that after a verb of cognition the infinitive clause refers to the
content of the mental process.
59
The reader may consult the commentaries on this point. Some affirm that Nebuchadnezzar was
asking his advisors to tell him the dream because he simply could not remember it [see Ren0 P0ter-
Contesse and John Ellington, A Handbook of the Book of Daniel (New York: United Bible Societies, 1993),
33; Goldingay, 46, among others].

60
BDB, 393.

61
KB
1
, 390-91.

62
The main verb in 2:4a is > [waw consecutive imperfect, 3
rd
, ms, pl].

63
IBHS 33.2.1c.

64
Franz Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1983), 6.

[13]

The question is: Why the transition to Aramaic?
65
A simple answer is that Nebuchadnezzar would
not have understood Hebrew.
66
Beyond this, the Aramaic section of Daniel chapters 2-7 would have
been of interest to non-Jews in Daniels circle of acquaintances.
67
Thus, in the first instance, there is a
practical reason; in the second, there may be a more missionary motive.

Finally, the use of Aramaic in Daniel 2-7 may also have a structural purpose. That is, the
structure of the book of Daniel could be looked at in terms of an A-B-A chiastic structure.

The opening of the book in Hebrew [Daniel 1, A] sets that stage and the essential themes for the
book. The transition to the Aramaic section [Daniel 2-7, B] signals a message to the kings of the earth,
written in an Imperial Language, to the effect that Yahweh is sovereign over the politics of man. Then,
Daniel returns to Hebrew [Daniel 8-12, A] and explicates the effects of political rulers, with special
attention to the people of God up to the end of time.

If this arrangement is accepted, then the reader sees at once that the center of the chiasm Daniel
2-7, Yahwehs sovereignty over the politics of man is central to the thought development of the book of
Daniel.

Within the Aramaic section, 2:4b-7:28, there is a way of structuring the entire unit so as to fully
appreciate the theme of the division as a whole. That is, the internal chiastic structure of the Aramaic
portion of Daniel may be schematized in a way that shows its interest in Gods sovereignty over the politics
of man:
68

A. Four empires and Gods coming kingdom [Dan. 2]
B. Trial by fire and Gods deliverance [Dan. 3]
C. A king warned, chastised, and delivered [Dan 4]
C. A king warned, defiant, and deposed [Dan 5]
B. Trial in the lions den and Gods deliverance [Dan 6]
A. Four empires and Gods everlasting kingdom [Dan 7]

Daniel 2:4b O, king, live forever! is an utterance that is punctuated with a z~qf q~tn, indicating
a pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: the utterance opens with the addressee O, king followed by a prepositional phrase
used temporally
69
forever and then the action word
70
live.

Syntax: the expression O, king is a polite and respectful form of address that serves to indicate
the vocative.
71

65
There are in fact two issues here: first, there is the rationale for transitioning to Aramaic;
second, there is the use of the Aramaic sections for purposes of dating the book of Daniel. The
commentaries of Collins, Baldwin, and Hartman and Di Lella can lead the reader through the thicket.

66
On this point, see Collins, Daniel, 156.

67
Baldwin, 30.

68
See Joyce Baldwin, Theology of Daniel, in NIDOTTE.

69
The temporal phrase is -- [preposition, noun, ms, pl].

70
The directive is W [Peal, imperative, ms, sg].


[14]

Daniel 2:4c Relate the dream to your servants is an utterance that is punctuated with a tifch~,
indicating a slight pause before the end of the utterance in 2:4d.

Grammar: the line opens with the verb
72
relate followed by the direct object the dream
and then a prepositional phrase functioning as indirect object to your servants.

Syntax: the line is a polite request to the king to relate the details of the dream.
73

Daniel 2:4d and the interpretation, we will declare is the final clause in the utterance.

Grammar: the line opens with the direct object of the verb
74
the interpretation followed by
the main verb
75
we will declare.

Syntax: the disjunctive waw is simply copulative, linking 2:4d with 2:4c.
76
The speakers also
appear to nuance their reply [2:4c-d] in the form of grammatical parallelism, thus:

Relate [verb] + the dream [object] // the interpretation [object] + we will declare [verb].

The reader may appreciate the contrasts embedded within this grammatical parallelism by
focusing on the contrasts in the verbs. To begin with, there is contrast in mood; the first verb is an
imperative, the second an indicative. Then, there is contrast in number; the first verb is singular, the
second plural. Moreover, there is a contrast in stems; the first verb is a Peal, the second a Pael. Finally,
there is the contrast in person; the first verb is singular, the second is plural.

The net effect of these contrasts would seem to be to underline the part each participant plays in
the success of the interpretive enterprise. Without the A-line [relate the dream], the B-line will not occur
[the interpretation, we will declare]. At the same time, and this seems to be the point of the grammatical
parallelism, armed with the A-line [relate the dream], the B-line is a walk in the park [the dream we will
relate].

Lexical: to begin with, the astrologers promise an interpretation [p
e
>r]. The lexical background
of p
e
>r is revealing. In Jewish Aramaic, the term implies diagnosis or meaning; the Akkadian cognate
[piru] is used for a solution, which may include a magical solution. The Syriac cognate [pewryn] is an
explanation.
77
The Hebrew term appears in the Old Testament only once, Ecclesiastes 8:1, where the
writer asks rhetorically who knows the meaning [p
e
>r] of anything? As a general principle, Qoheleth
seems to be of the opinion that no one knows the meaning [p
e
>r] of anything. These Babylonian advisors
are destined to discover the same thing.

71
Rosenthal 41, 43, and Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander, Grammatil des Biblisch-Aramisschn
(Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1962), 84 b.
72
The verb is an imperative . [Peal, imperative, ms, sg].

73
For the imperative in Aramaic as a request, see Bauer-Leander 84 a.

74
The interpretation glosses . [disjunctive waw, noun, ms, sg, determined].

75
We will declare renders .W. [Pael, imperfect, 1
st
, c, pl].

76
Bauer-Leander 70 b.

77
KB
2
, 982.


[15]

The Aramaic cognate [p
e
>r] used in Daniel 2:4d appears frequently in Daniel.
78
The usages of
p
e
>r in Daniel 2, 4 concern the dream experience of Nebuchadnezzar; the uses of the term in Daniel 5
concerning the handwriting on the wall before Belshazzar, and the final use in Daniel 7 relates to Daniel
himself.

In each chapter, there are uses of p
e
>r with other terms that help tease out what interpretation
more or less amounts to.

An interpretation [p
e
>r] is associated with what is trustworthy in Daniel 2:45. The writer uses a
Haphel passive participle to describe an interpretation as that is reliable and confirmed. It is not too much
of a stretch to read a similar nuance in Daniel 2:4b.

In Daniel 4:15, p
e
>r is associated with wisdom by Nebuchadnezzar and with divine power by
the same ruler. The king laments that the wise men among his cabinet could not provide him with an
interpretation, suggesting, at least from where Nebuchadnezzar stood, that p
e
>r is within the scope of
wisdom. More to the point, Nebuchadnezzar links Daniels skills in p
e
>r with the spirit of the holy gods,
presuming that Daniel has divine sources for his skills in p
e
>r. As we have noted in the discussion of
these various advisors in 2:2a, these men certainly would have championed the supernatural origin of their
explanatory work. The hand of the gods may also be assumed in 2:4b.

In Daniel 5:8, the handwriting on the wall story, Belshazzar, the recipient of the unusual message,
equates p
e
>r with knowing or with understanding the meaning of this other-worldly event. Later in
chapter 5, Belshazzar links p
e
>r with knowledge, understanding, explaining riddles, and solving problems
[5:12]. The term glossed knowledge likens interpretation to knowledge or understanding gained through
recognition of the true circumstances of some situation. Moreover, the term for understanding associates
p
e
>r with insight, where the Aramaic term suggests illumination of mind;
79
Rosenthal glosses the term as
an abstract term for brilliance.
80

The explanation of riddles
81
describes Daniel as a man who could give a clear explanation of
something absolutely hidden to everyone else around him. The noun glossed riddle indicates something
that is closed up tightly, as in a riddle or a puzzling statement or circumstance. The net effect is that
explaining riddles yields interpretation [p
e
>r].

Finally, there is the skill involved in solving difficulties.
82
The sense of the phrase is untying
knots; that Daniel will be asked to make sense of the handwriting on the wall for Belshazzar is a knotty

78
Daniel 2:4-7, 9, 16, 24-26, 30, 36, 45; 4:3-4, 6, 15-16, 21; 5:7-8, 12, 15-17, 26; 7:16.
79
KB
2
, 1927r.

80
Rosenthal 56.

81
Explanation of riddles is glossed by Rosenthal as giving information on riddles [Rosenthal
111]; Bauer-Leander opts for explanation [Bauer-Leander 65 p]. The infinitive may be glossed to make
known, to interpret [KB, 1871r], Holladay, 405r, also opts for to make known, to interpret. The noun
glossed riddles points to something that is closed up tightly [KB, 1809], thus a puzzle, riddle [KB, 1809r].
Montgomery affirms that the Syriac cognate is the background for the Hebrew root and the Aramaic, which
points to what is held, fast [James Montgomery, The Book of Daniel (Edinburgh: Clark, 1989), 260]. The
Hebrew cognate is a term common to the wisdom literature of the Old Testament. Gerald Wilson points
out that a riddle essentially implies difficult speech requiring interpretation [Gerald Wilson, chwh, in
NIDOTTE]. Montgomery notes that, as a matter of historical fact, riddle contests were fairly common in
the ANE of the time [259].

82
Difficulties comes from a root that may be glossed knot, or a difficult task [KB, 1969].
Montgomery, 261, remarks that the root is fairly common as a magical term in Syria and Arabia; he also
reports that in these magical texts the noun is common for the knots tied by a sorcerer and having to be

[16]

problem to be unraveled. We may infer that solving difficulties, such as the one in Daniel 2, is also part and
parcel with p
e
>r.
Then, in Daniel 7:16, the interpretation [p
e
>r] that Daniel asks for is equivalent to truth
[y~tsTb]. When Daniel seeks an interpretation that is y~tsTb, he is asking for an interpretation that is
certain, true, and irrefutable.
83
Bauer and Leander gloss y~tsTb with the German term fest which
means solid, stable, firm, definite or fixed.
84
The net effect is that, for Daniel at least, a p
e
>r is that which
is well established truth, amounting to reliable information about his visionary experience in chapter 7.
85

The astrologers in Daniel 2 would surely be promising the same quality of information: a solid, reliable,
well established interpretation of Nebuchadnezzars dream.

So, what are these gurus offering Nebuchadnezzar in the way of an interpretation in Daniel 2:4d?
They are offering a p
e
>r from a definite source with a definite quality.

To begin with, the p
e
>r brings with it an aura of divine support; there is a supernatural element
awaited in p
e
>r. We have already noted in the discussion of these various advisors that they are skilled
in occult knowledge; they were practiced in the art of consulting, if not manipulating, the gods to influence
outcomes. Moreover, as noted in Daniel 4:15, Nebuchadnezzar seems to assume that those who interpret
dreams have connections with the spirit of the holy gods. Indeed, Goldingay notes that p
e
>r implies not
simple human interpretation, but interpretation by some level of supernatural revelation, with specific
reference to what something presages.
86

Ultimately, not only the source but also the quality of the p
e
>r may be noted regarding Daniel
2:4d. That is, these members of Nebuchadnezzars inner circle are promising a p
e
>r that is insightful as it
would be for Belshazzar later [Daniel 5]. They are undertaking to provide a p
e
>r that unravels the details
of this incomprehensible dream experience as it would later for Belshazzar [Daniel 5].

The upshot is that these advisors to Nebuchadnezzar are ensuring a divine revelation that explains
all concerning the dream that is troubling the king. The reader should appreciate the import of the specious
divine origin of their p
e
>r. Daniel 2:4b sets the storyline on the path to the failure of these advisors and
prepares the way for the success of Gods man to truly explain all. Indeed, the centerpiece of Daniel 2
[2:17-24] will be just that Yahwehs revelation.

One final, subtle, point should be noted when these advisors promise the interpretation we will
declare. The verb we will declare is in the Pael stem, which signals causation.
87
The causation is, in
the final analysis, human causation. These advisors, readers, seers, and gurus are the ones who will
conclusively solve the interpretive dilemma.

The level of human hutzpah becomes even clearer when we tease out the lexical sense of the verb
declare [ch~w>]. These consultants were promising to make known to Nebuchadnezzar what he needs to
understand about his dream experience.
88
All will be explained to the monarch by his professionals.

untied by counter-magic [259]. Montgomery ultimately writes that our noun in this sentence may be
translated problems, difficulties [259].
83
KB
2
, 1892.

84
Bauer-Leander 51 e.

85
KB
2
, 1893.

86
Goldingay, 33.
87
For the causative nuance in this stem, see Bauer-Leander 76 g; Rosenthal 99.

88
KB
2
, 1871.

[17]

Second dialogue: the king clarifies what he wants, 2:5-7

Translation (2:5) The king answered and said to the astrologers, The command from me
irrevocable; if you do not inform me of the dream and its interpretation, then you will be dismembered, and
your houses turned to rubble. (2:6) But, if the dream and its interpretation you make known, then, gifts,
rewards, and great honor you will receive from me; therefore, the dream and its interpretation, declare to
me. (2:7) They replied a second time and said, Let the king relate the dream to his servants, and the
meaning we will make known.

Paragraph sense

(i) [Chronological statement] The king answered and said to the astrologers,
(ii) [Classifying statement] The command from me irrevocable;
(iii) [First clarifying statement of (ii)] if you do not inform me of the dream and its interpretation, then
you will be dismembered and your houses turned to rubble.
(iv) [Second clarifying statement; antithesis of (iii)] But, if the dream and its interpretation you make
known, then, gifts, rewards, and great honor you will receive from me;
(v) [Conclusion of (ii-iv)] therefore, the dream and its interpretation, make known to me.
(vi) [Chronological statement] They replied a second time and said,
(vii) [Polite request] Let the king relate the dream to his servants,
(viii) [Promise following (vii)] and the meaning we will make known.

The reader may infer, from the nominal clause that is in bold, that the gist of this paragraph is this
irrevocable decision/command made by the king. What Nebuchadnezzar makes abundantly clear is that his
advisors are under the gun; either supply what he wants or suffer the consequences. The essence of this
paragraph is the ultimatum. Nebuchadnezzar has thrown down the gauntlet.

Nebuchadnezzar, 2:5-6

Daniel 2:5b The command from me irrevocable is a verbless clause that is punctuated with an
àtnach, signaling a major pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:5b is a nominal clause that opens with the definite subject
89
the command
followed by a prepositional phrase from me followed by a modal assertive adverb
90
irrevocable. The
grammatical identification of the term translated irrevocable [azd~] is simply uncertain. Rosenthal
identifies azd~ as a modal adverb used in Persian legal and political terminology; the sense of the adverb is
publically known, known (as decided).
91
The Guidebook follows KB
2
and glosses irrevocable.

Syntax: the noun clause with a definite subject and an indefinite predicate is a clause of
classification, identifying what the command/decree from Nebuchadnezzar is like.
92
The net effect is that

89
The command renders .- [noun, fm, sg, determined].

90
The predicate term is .. [noun, fm, sg, determined (per KB
2
, 1808; Holladay, 396)]. The
fact of the matter is that this term is grammatically vague. Both KB and Holladay read it as a definite noun;
BDB, 1079, reads the term as an adjective. Rosenthal affirms that the word is an adverb of Persian origin
[Rosenthal 93].

91
Rosenthal 93, 189.

92
IBHS 8.4.2.


[18]

the proposition, as clarified in the remainder of 2:5-6, is the only deal these men are going to get. What
Nebuchadnezzar is about to spell out is definite, irrefutable, and undeniable.
93

Lexical: the noun glossed command [mTll~h] may be read in one of two ways. That is, command/
mTll~h may be translated in the sense of a word that is either spoken or written, or in the more general
sense of matter or affair.
94
The collocation command coming from me seems to make better sense than
the matter coming from me. The net effect is that the command or decision is twofold: these advisors are
commanded [1] to reveal the content of the dream and [2] to make known its meaning.

This mTll~h/command is final; there is no way out for this cadre of consultants. The adjective
[zd] may be translated in more than one way. Rosenthal affirms that the term is actually a modal assertive
adverb that may be glossed publically known or known (as decided); he further observes that the term is
evidence of Persian influence in the sphere of political and legal administration.
95
Holladay seems to prefer
this option, glossing zd with promulgated.
96
Another possibility for zd is definite, irrevocable, irrefutable
or firmly decided.
97
BDB opts for this sense, translating zd as assured, denoting what is fully resolved
upon by Nebuchadnezzar.
98
Most of the English versions translate with some variation of firmly resolved.

Accordingly, the sense of Daniel 2:5b is pretty much as Goldingay has it I have made a firm
decision.
99
What the king communicates is expressed in the political and legal administrative language of
the day. For these consultants, the die is cast.

Daniel 2:5c if you do not inform me of the dream and its interpretation, you will be
dismembered and your houses turned to rubble is an utterance that wraps up Daniel 2:5, the Masoretic
text ending the utterance with a sf p~s|q, signaling the end of the verse. Within this utterance, there is a
z~qf q~tn after interpretation and after dismembered, both indicating a brief pause in the reading of the
utterance.

Grammar: Daniel 2:5c opens with a subordinating conjunction if followed by the negated
verb
100
you do not inform me of with the two direct objects the dream and its interpretation; then, we
have the first consequence of failure
101
you will be dismembered and then the second
102
and your
houses turned to rubble.

93
KB
2
, 1808r.
94
KB
2
, 1915r, opts for spoken word; BDB, 1109r, goes with word/command; Holladay, 411r, also
translates the term with spoken word.

95
Rosenthal 93; Rosenthal translates publically known; see also KB
2
, 1808, for this option.

96
Holladay, 396r.

97
KB
2
, 1808.

98
BDB, 1079r.

99
Goldingay, 33; Collins, Daniel, goes the same route with verdict or decision.

100
The verb is ..=~ [Haphel, imperfect, 2
nd
, ms, pl, with a 1
st
, cs, suffix] .-
[negative].

101
You will be dismembered renders a direct object, ~ [noun, ms, pl] and a verb,
> [Hithpael, imperfect, 2
nd
, ms, pl].

102
Your houses turned to rubble glosses O [Hithpael, imperfect, 3
rd
, ms, pl]
-. [noun, fm, sg] =-> [copulative waw, noun, ms, pl, construct with a 2
nd
, ms, pl,
suffix].

[19]

Syntax: the syntax of Daniel 2:5c is shaped by the subordinating conjunction [hn], which signals
a conditional clause.
103
The protasis [statement of the condition] is if you do not inform me , and the
apodosis [statement of the consequence] is then you will be dismembered and your houses turned to rubble.

The Haphel stem of the verb inform is causative.
104
The verb means to know and in the
causative stem means to cause to know or simply to inform.
105
Holladay goes with to let someone know or
simply to communicate.
106
Accordingly, the causative stem indicates that Nebuchadnezzar expects a
virtually revelatory outcome from these specialists.

Lexical: of key lexical interest are the statements of consequence dismemberment and rubble.
The first is obviously a reference to corporal punishment; the second reference is less clear, implying either
humiliation or removal of even the remembrance of these advisors from the public memory.

You will be dismembered is an official phrase, drawn from the legal and political language of
Persian administration.
107
As a matter of fact, being hacked to pieces was an oriental form of capital
punishment by slow death.
108
Montgomery notes that this is a common penalty for disobedience to the
royal command.
109

Your houses turned to rubble extends the penalty to personal property. Indeed, the operative term
in the sentence is rubble [n
e
w~lT]. When used with the Hithpael of the verb we have here [Vym], the
collocation takes on the sense of to pull down and turn into a dump for waste [n
e
w~lT].
110
As the reader
may note, the entire penalty takes on an element of personal humiliation. Indeed, Holladay observes that
n
e
w~lT means that the personal property of these hapless advisors would have been turned into a public
privy or a garbage heap of ruin and debris.
111
The element of humiliation seems obvious, while the net
effect would surely be to erase the memory of these men from the face of the earth.

Daniel 2:6a But, if the dream and its interpretation you make known is the opening utterance in
2:6. It is punctuated with a z~qf q~tn, indicating a slight pause in the reading of the line.

103
Bauer-Leander 70 k; see also Rosenthal 86.

104
Bauer-Leander 76 k; Rosenthal 99.

105
Rosenthal 130.

106
Holladay, 407r.

107
Rosenthal 189.

108
KB
2
, 1858r.

109
Montgomery, 146.

110
KB
2
, 1928r.

111
Holladay, 413r.


[20]

Grammar: the sentence commences with the conjunction
112
but, if followed by the direct
objects of the main verb the dream and its interpretation and then the main verb
113
you make known.

Syntax: this opening sentence is the protasis of a conditional if then sentence.
114
Moreover,
the proposition the king is offering is antithetical, the flip side of the previous capital punishment-
humiliation penalty. We thus have an example of antithesis by antonyms.
115

The syntactical-semantic import of the Haphel stem of the main verb is causative,
116
indicating
that the king expects these men to make known the meaning of all of this.

Daniel 2:6b then, gifts, a reward, and great honor you will receive from me is a sentence that is
punctuated with an àtnach, signaling the major break in the reading of the line.

Grammar: the sentence commences with the direct objects of the main verb
117
gifts, a reward,
and great honor followed by the main verb
118
you will receive and a concluding prepositional phrase
from me.

Syntax: the sentence is the apodosis of the preceding protasis, the then element of the opening but
if sentence. The outcome may be the experience of the kings largesse.

Lexical: of obvious interest is the nature of the kings munificence. The gift [matn~h] is simply a
present or a gift.
119
The noun is used three times in the Aramaic section of Daniel [2:6, 48; 5:16]. The use
of matn~h in 5:18 suggests both personal property and promotion.

The reward [n
e
bTzb~h] is dubious. The noun may be of Akkadian origin [nibzu] indicating a clay
tablet or a document with goods written on it, amounting to a voucher or a receipt of some sort for
merchandise.
120

These first two payoffs are in the realm of material benefits. The next seems to appeal more to
self-importance or the will to power. All three may as much about the bearer of the gifts as the recipients.

The third inducement is honor [y
e
q~r]. Rosenthal translates y
e
q~r with honor;
121
KB adds the
notion of dignity to the term;
122
and Holladay opts for majesty.
123
In a very interesting use of this noun,

112
The opening conjunction is ~.

113
The main verb is =W~ [Haphel, imperfect, 2
nd
, ms, pl].
114
Bauer-Leander 70 k; see also Rosenthal 86.

115
Andersen, Sentence, 181.

116
Bauer-Leander 76 n.

117
Gifts glosses . [noun, fm, pl]; a reward renders ~>>. [noun, fm, sg]; and
great honor translates .-O [adjective, ms, sg] [noun, ms, sg].

118
You will receive renders -> [Pael, imperfect, 2
nd
, ms, pl].

119
Bauer-Leander 51 r glosses Geschenk, as does KB
2
, 1924r.

120
See KB
2
, 1924-25r.

121
Rosenthal, 90.


[21]

Daniel will later in this episode politely inform Nebuchadnezzar that Yahweh has given the king his y
e
q~r,
his majesty. In this case, y
e
q~r is associated with his royal office. It probably never occurred to
Nebuchadnezzar that anyone other than he could confer y
e
q~r, majesty. Characteristically, in Daniel 4:30,
in a soliloquy, Nebuchadnezzar assigns his y
e
q~r, his royal majesty, to his efforts. Elsewhere in Daniel,
y
e
q~r is associated with the majesty of royal office [4:36; 5:18, 20].

There is, however, a joker in the pack when it comes to y
e
q~r/majesty in the book of Daniel.
Daniel 7 refers to One like a son of man approaching Ancient of Days [7:13] in order to be given authority
to rule, y
e
q~r/glory, and a kingdom, indeed a kingdom embracing all people for all time [Daniel 7:14]. In
the broader context of the Aramaic portion of the book of Daniel, the writer is alerting us, the reader, to the
real y
e
q~r, the genuine article in terms of royal majesty the Messiah. For now, we must be content to
read of the pretenders to y
e
q~r, the frills of royal majesty.

The net effect is that these advisors will reap material and royal benefits, if they come through and
give the king what he wants.

Daniel 2:6c therefore, the dream and its meaning declare to me is the final utterance from the
king to the advisors in this section of the dialogue.

Grammar: the closing utterance opens with a conjunction therefore followed by the twin
direct objects of the verb the dream and its interpretation and the main verb
124
declare to me.

Syntax: the syntactical relation of 2:6c to the previous context is signaled by the conjunction
l~hNn. Bauer-Leander translates therefore,
125
teasing out the consequence of 2:5b-6b.

The imperative declare is a command form; the king is giving his advisors an order.

Lets take a moment to summarize what Nebuchadnezzar wants. In 2:5c, the king demands to
know the content of the dream and its meaning to him; he repeats the substance of this demand in 2:6a-b.
For the moment, the reason behind demanding the content of the dream may be set to one side. It appears
that Nebuchadnezzar was skeptical of his advisors in their capacity as interpreters [2:8-9]. What the king
wants is an interpretation, a p
e
>r.

To begin with, the interpretation/ p
e
>r provides an answer to two key questions presented by the
dream. First, the dreamer wants to know whether the dream in its apparent lack of meaning or sense or in
its irrelevance is to be ignored as devoid of meaning [emphasis mine].
126
Or, second, whether it is to be
recognized as bearing on himself [emphasis mine], his family or his country.
127
Finally, since these
symbolic dreams are counted as always dealing with future events,
128
the king wants to know whether or
not this dream concerns his future.

122
KB
2
, 1893r.

123
Holladay, 408r.
124
The verb is a directive .=W~ [Haphel, imperative, ms, pl, with a 1
st
, cs, suffix].

125
Bauer-Leander 68 v, x.

126
A. Leo Oppenheim, The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East, With a Translation
of an Assyrian Dream Book (Philadelphia: The America Philosophical Society, 1956), 207.

127
Ibid.

128
Ibid.


[22]

Taking points two and three, above, a bit further, if the dream has some bearing on the dreamer
and his future, then Nebuchadnezzar wants two further particulars from his interpreters. First,
Nebuchadnezzar wants an interpretation, an unfolding of the content dream by the interpreter; and second,
and most importantly, the king wants the dispelling or removing [emphasis mine] of the evil consequences
of such a dream by magic means [emphasis mine].
129
It is now clear to the reader why these
p
e
>r/interpreters are practiced in the art of magic. Not only does Nebuchadnezzar want information, he
also wants dissolution of the thrust of the dream, should it foreshadow misfortune for his future.

Advisors, 2:7

Daniel 2:7a They replied a second time and said is an introductory formula punctuated with an
àtnach, indicating the major pause in the reading of the line.

Daniel 2:7b Let the king relate the dream to his servants is the opening utterance of the advisors,
being punctuated with a tiph~h, diving the sentence between the àtnach and the end of the line.

Grammar: the line opens with the addressee the king followed by the verbal form depicting a
respectful request
130
let relate with the indirect object of the line to his servants.

Syntax: the syntax of the line is carried by the jussive sense of the verb. In 2:4c, the advisors used
an imperative form; here, after the kings response, they seem to moderate their own response with a more
polite jussive. There is no unique form for the jussive for this verb in Biblical Aramaic. The context
simply determines the jussive sense.
131

Daniel 2:7c and the meaning we will make known is the final utterance in the second dialogue.

Evidently, at this point in the dialogue, these advisors are prepared to give the king what he wants,
per the notes above. However, the story will go downhill for them from here. In the overall trajectory of
Daniel 2:3-13, this downhill slide creates the failure they will soon face [2:12-13].

Third dialogue: The king and his advisors are at an impasse, 2:8-11

Translation (2:8) So, the king replied and said, Most certainly I know, that you are buying time;
inasmuch as you have seen that irrevocable is the command from me. (2:9) Namely that, if the dream you
do not make known to me, there is one verdict for you, but an utterance [that is] false and corrupt you have
agreed beforehand to speak to me, until conditions change; therefore, tell me the dream, and then I will
know that the interpretation you can make known to me. (2:10) The astrologers before the king answered
and said, There does not exist a man upon the earth, who is able to make known the matter for the king;
inasmuch as no great king or ruler has ever asked a matter like this of any magician, conjurer, or astrologer.
(2:11) For, the matter that the king requires is difficult, indeed, there is not another who can make it known
to the king; except the gods, whose dwelling place is not with mortal flesh.

Paragraph sense

(i) [Dialogical statement] So, the king replied and said,
(ii) [Opening assertion] Most certainly, I know that you are buying time;
(iii) [Motive statement (ii)] inasmuch as you have seen that irrevocable is the command from me.
(iv) [Clarifying statement of (iii)] Namely that, if the dream you do not make known to me,
(v) [Consequence of (iv)] there is one verdict for you,
(vi) [Adversative of (ii-v); impasse] but, an utterance that is false and corrupt you have agreed
beforehand to speak to me,

129
Ibid., 219.
130
Let relate glosses . [Peal, imperfect, 3
rd
, ms, sg, jussive sense].

131
On the jussive in Biblical Aramaic, see Rosenthal 108; Bauer-Leander 78 r-s.

[23]

(vii) [Temporal indicator] until conditions change;
(viii) [Consequence of (vi-vii) therefore, tell me the dream
(ix) [Outcome of (viii)] then, I will know that the interpretation you can make known to me.

(x) [Second dialogical response] The astrologers before the king answered and said,
(xi) [Opening assertion; negative] There does not exist a man upon the earth,
(xii) [Clarification of (xi)] who is able to make the matter known for the king;
(xiii) [Justification for (xii)] inasmuch as no great king or ruler has ever asked a matter like this
of any magician, conjurer, or astrologer.
(xiv) [Clarification of (xiii)] For, the matter that the king requires is difficult,
(xv) [Intensification of (xiv)] indeed, there is not another who can make it known to the king;
(xvi) [Exceptive to (xv)] except the gods, whose dwelling place is not with mortal flesh.

Nebuchadnezzar and the cabinet are at an impasse. He thinks they are stalling until conditions
change [2:8-9]; they think he is asking the impossible [2:10-11]. The dialogue has reached a stalemate; and
in the overall trajectory of the storyline, this gridlock will provide an opening for Daniel.

At the same time, the reader should note well the theological bottleneck here. Not only are the
advisors stymied, they also affirm that the gods are not available to help. This is the bottleneck that Daniel
will not only break through but also make abundantly clear that his God is readily accessible. For this
theological reason, this portion of the dialogue is crucial.

Nebuchadnezzar, 2:8-9

Daniel 2:8a So, the king replied and said is an utterance that is punctuated with a z~qf q~tn,
signaling a slight pause before the opening of the dialogue.

Daniel 2:8b Most certainly, I know that you are buying time is an utterance that is punctuated
with a z~qf q~tn after I know and an àtnach at the end of the line indicating the major break in the
reading of the line.

Grammar: the line opens with an adverbial expression
132
most certainly followed by the main
verb
133
I know followed by a subordinate clause
134
that you are buying time.

Syntax: the syntax of the opening assertion of Nebuchadnezzar features a statement of certitude
on the kings part. Literally, the phrase most certainly is a prepositional phrase that may be translated
of a certainty.
135
The sense of the adjective [yatstsTb] when used with this preposition communicates
validity, definiteness or simply truthfulness.
136
The gist is that Nebuchadnezzar thinks he is on firm ground
in making this claim.

132
The adverbial expression is >l [adjective, ms, sg] [preposition].

133
I know renders ~.. [1
st
, sg, pronoun] [Peal, participle, ms, sg].

134
The subordinate clause is .> [Peal, participle, ms, pl] .. [2
nd
, ms, pl,
pronoun] .. [noun, ms, sg, determined].

135
Rosenthal 80.

136
KB
2
, 1893r.


[24]

The personal pronoun [I] used with the participle [know] is a construction that often underscores
the present moment.
137
This construction would probably leave little doubt in the minds of the cabinet
members just where they stand with Nebuchadnezzar as he speaks to them. There is a here-and-now
quality to the utterance.

Lexical: of lexical moment is the heart of Nebuchadnezzars assertion you are buying time. The
sense of the participle [z
e
b>n] is metaphorical. The king is assured, in his own mind that they are seeking
to gain time.
138
Holladay offers the figurative gloss buy time.
139

The upshot is that Nebuchadnezzar is skeptical of his advisors at this moment. The next verse will
tease out the basis of his skepticism.

Daniel 2:8c inasmuch as you have seen that irrevocable is the command from me is the final
sentence in Daniel 2:8.

Grammar: Daniel 2:8c opens with the causative phrase
140
inasmuch as followed by the finite
verb
141
you have seen concluding with the relative clause as direct object of the verb that irrevocable
is the command from me.

Syntax: syntactically, Daniel 2:8c is a motive statement; Nebuchadnezzar provides what he
assumes the reason to be for these advisors playing for time.
142

The syntactical-semantic thrust of the perfect aspect verb you have seen probably signals
existing results.
143
The king affirms that their eyes are fully open to their plight.

Lexical: the verb you have seen is a perception term.
144
In light of the syntactical-semantic
import of the perfect aspect of this verb, the sense is something like you have absolutely perceived. Just
exactly what the king knows that they fully realize is stated in the next sentence [2:9a].

Daniel 2:9a Namely that, if the dream you do not make known to me there is one verdict for you
is a sentence that is punctuated with a r
e
bT
a!
.

Grammar: Daniel 2:9a opens with a relative particle namely that followed by a subordinating
conjunction used to signal a condition
145
if then the direct object of the main verb the dream

137
Rosenthal 177.
138
BDB, 1091r; Bauer-Leander 81 c; KB
2
, 1863r.

139
Holladay, 404r.

140
The causative phrase is [relative particle] -> [noun, ms, sg, construct]--.

141
You have seen translates =.W [Peal, perfect, 2
nd
, ms, pl].

142
For this phrase used to signal causation, see Rosenthal 86; Bauer-Leander 70 h.

143
Bauer-Leander 79 c, e; on perfective aspect, see also Bernard Comrie, Aspect: An
Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 20, 56.

144
KB
2
, 1872r; Holladay, 405r.

145
The conditional sentence as a whole is: ..=~ [Haphel, imperfect, 2
nd
, ms, pl,
with a 1
st
, cs, suffix] .- [negative particle] .-W [definite article, noun, fm, sg]~ [particle,
conjunction].

[25]

followed by the main verb you do not make known and then a numeral
146
one with the predicate of
the nominal clause verdict for you.

Syntax: Daniel 2:9a introduces a subordinate clause after a verb of perception you have seen
in 2:8c. The upshot is that 2:9a teases out that which these advisors have realized vis--vis the king, his
demand, and their vulnerability.
147

Moreover, the protasis of the conditional clause if the dream you do not make known sets forth
the essential prerequisite for the continued work and survival of these advisors.
148
Then, the apodosis
stipulates the consequence of failure in the form of a nominal clause of identification, where the form of the
sentence declares complete overlap between subject one and predicate verdict for you.
149

Lexical: of lexical interest is the term verdict. The noun comes from the sphere of Persian
political and legal administration.
150
The term points to a royal edict against these advisors.
151
Holladay
gets to the heart of where these men stood by glossing d~tkn with judgment against you.
152

The commentaries shed some light on d~tkn. Hartman and Di Lella translate there can only be
one fate for you.
153
Slotki renders d~tkn with penalty or sentence.
154

Daniel 2:9b but, an utterance, false and corrupt, you have agreed beforehand to speak to me is a
sentence that is punctuated with a z~qf q~tn, signaling a slight pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: the sentence opens with the object of the main verb
155
but, an utterance followed
by two appositional nouns describing this utterance
156
false and corrupt followed by the main verb
157

you have agreed beforehand and wrapped up with an infinitive clause to speak to me.

146
The nominal clause is: =- [noun, fm, sg, construct with a 2
nd
, ms, pl, suffix] .~
[pronoun, 3
rd
, fm, sg]~W [numeral, fm, sg].
147
Rosenthal 86; Montgomery, 149-50; KB
2
, 1851r.

148
On the use of hNn in a conditional line, see Rosenthal 86; Bauer-Leander 70 k.

149

150
Rosenthal 189.

151
BDB, 1089r.

152
Holladay, 403r.

153
Hartman and Di Lella, 135.

154
A. Cohen, ed., The Soncino Books of the Bible, Daniel-Ezra-Nehemiah by Judah J. Slotki,
revised by Rabbi Ephraim Oratz (London: The Soncino Press, 1992), 9.

155
The object of the verb is: ~- [conjunction, noun, fm, sg].

156
The nouns in apposition are: ~W [conjunction, Peal, passive participle, fm, sg]
~>- [noun, fm, sg].

157
The verb is: .~ [Haphel, perfect, 2
nd
, ms, pl].


[26]

Syntax: the syntax of Daniel 2:9b is governed by the disjunctive waw that opens the line. This
waw may be adversative, signaling a level of defiance on the part of the advisors in spite of the fate that
awaits them.
158
At the same time, the syntax of the sentence may signal the net effect of the fate that awaits
these advisors, stressing evasion should they fail to deliver the goods. In this case, the sense is and so,
you stall.
159
Ultimately, the point is a fine one and cannot be pressed.

The terms in apposition false and corrupt serve to classify or more closely define what
Nebuchadnezzar judges to be the substance of their forthcoming response to him.
160
As in Hebrew, the
terms in apposition specify the quality of the impending utterance, as the king sees things at the moment.
161

Lexical: of obvious lexical interest is the assessment of the imminent interpretation: false and
corrupt.

The noun false [kibd>] describes the quality of what the king expects from these men in terms of
an out-and-out lie.
162
The noun implies deception.
163

The noun rendered corrupt [
e
chTt~h] is a passive participle that is used nominally, describing
the quality of the impending deception as spoiled or corrupted.
164
Rosenthal notes that the lexeme may
connote what is faulty.
165

Hartman and Di Lella translate false and corrupt with vile lie.
166
Slotki calls this an invention on
their part.
167

The main verb in the line [h>zmTnt|n] may be glossed to come to an understanding;
168
or agree
together;
169
or better to come to a decision.
170

158
Bauer-Leander 70 p.

159
KB
2
, 1862r; BDB, 1091r.

160
Bauer-Leander 93 c.

161
Gibson 39 e.

162
KB
2
, 1896r; BDB, 1096r.

163
KB
2
, 1896.

164
KB
2
, 1992r; BDB, 1115r; Holladay, 442r.

165
Rosenthal, 98.

166

167
Slotki, 9.

168
KB
2
, 1865r.

169
BDB, 1091r.

170
Holladay, 404r.


[27]

Daniel 2:9c until conditions change is a sentence that is punctuated with an àtnach, indicating the
major pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: the sentence opens with a temporal marker until followed by the subject of the
intransitive verb
171
conditions and then the verb change.

Syntax: the syntax of Daniel 2:9c is shaped by the temporal marker until referencing the some
future time frame.
172
The syntax implies that these advisors are playing for time.

Lexical: the noun glossed conditions [`Tddn~] may indicate time in a general way, or, better in
this context, time as involving specific conditions.
173
In other words, these advisors want the specific
situation that distinguishes this time to simply fade away.

Daniel 2:9d therefore, tell me the dream is a sentence that is punctuated with a z~qf q~tn,
signaling a slight pause in the reading of the line.

The sentence signals a consequence of 2:9a-c in the form of a directive.

Daniel 2:9e then I will know that the interpretation of the dream you can make known to me is
the closing utterance in this portion of the kings dialogue.

Advisors, 2:10-11

As noted previously, in the kings portion of the dialogue, he makes it clear that, from where he
sits, these advisors are stalling for time [2:8-9]. He has accused them of being disingenuous and deceptive.

Moreover, the advisors point to the unreasonable demands of the king on two fronts: first, no one
ever asked such a thing of advisors [2:10], and, second, given the demands from Nebuchadnezzar, not even
the gods can help, since they really are not available to mortal flesh [2:11].

This gridlock will provide the opportunity for Daniel to emerge as a representative of the only true
God who is available.

Daniel 2:10a The astrologers before the king answered and said is a sentence that is punctuated
with a z~qf q~tn, signaling a slight pause in the reading of the line.

Daniel 2:10b There does not exist a man upon the earth is an utterance that is also punctuated with
a z~qf q~tn, signaling a slight pause in the reading of the line. Specifically, there are actually two
pauses: there does not exist a man pause upon the earth pause. These pauses seem to set in clear
relief each of the elements in the sentence.

Grammar: Daniel 2:10b opens with the negated verb there does not exist followed by the
subject of the sentence a man and closes with a prepositional phrase upon the earth.
174

171
Conditions glosses .. [definite article, noun, ms, sg]; change glosses ..
[Hithpael, imperfect, 3
rd
, ms, sg].
172
Bauer-Leander 109 l; see also Rosenthal 86; KB
2
, 1943r; BDB, 1105r.

173
BDB, 1105r.

174
There does not exist glosses . [particle, used as a substantive] .- [negative
particle]; a man renders .. [noun, ms, sg]; upon the earth translates .> [definite article,
noun, fm, sg]- [preposition].


[28]

Syntax: the syntax of the opening words stress non-existence; literally there does not exist.
175

The sentence is a nominal clause.
176
The advisors are absolutely certain that no human being whatsoever
can even begin to supply what the king demands. Naturally, this blanket denial helps build the tension in
the narrative, since there is a man who can deliver on Nebuchadnezzars request.

Daniel 2:10c who is able to make known the matter for the king is a sentence that is punctuated
with a z~qf q~tn and then with an àtnach, indicating the major pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:10c opens with the relative marker who followed by the direct object of
the sentence the matter for the king and then the verbal construction able to make known.
177

Syntax: Daniel 2:10c is a relative clause that functions to define more closely the antecedent in
2:10b, a man.
178

The genitive construction the matter for the king may imply a relationship of entity [matter] to
interested party [the king].
179

Daniel 2:10d inasmuch as no great king or ruler has ever asked a matter like this of any
magician, conjurer, or astrologer is the final utterance in Daniel 2:10.

Grammar: 2:10d opens with the subordinating conjunction
180
inasmuch as flowed by the
subject of the sentence no great king or ruler then the object of the verb matter like this and then the
verb ever asked and concluding with a prepositional phrase of any magician, conjurer, or astrologer.

Syntax: the syntax of Daniel 2:10d is governed by the subordinating conjunction, which signals
causation.
181

The syntactical-semantic thrust of the Peal stem of this verb communicates an intensification of
the idea of the verbal root, hence has ever asked.
182
What this may imply is that, as far as
Nebuchadnezzar is concerned, there are limits to what even he can demand.
183

Daniel 2:11a For, the matter, which the king requires, is difficult is a sentence that is punctuated
with a z~qf q~tn, indicating a brief pause in the reading of the line.

175
Rosenthal 95.

176
Bauer-Leander 98 t.
177
The direct object is: .-- [definite article, noun, ms, sg] - [noun, fm, sg,
construct]; the verbal construction is: ~W~- [Haphel, infinitive construct/to make known]
-- [Peal, imperfect, 3
rd
, ms].

178
For this use of the conjunction dT see Rosenthal 35; Bauer-Leander 108 i.

179
On this use of the genitive, see Van der Merwe 25.4.6.

180
The subordinating conjunction construction is: ->--; the subject is:
- [conjunctive waw, adjective, ms, sg] > [adjective, ms, sg] - [noun, ms, sg]; and
the verb is: -. [Peal, perfect, 3
rd
, ms].

181
Bauer-Leander 70 h; Rosenthal 86.

182
Bauer-Leander 76 d.

183
Baldwin, 88.


[29]

Grammar: the sentence opens with the subject
184
for, the matter followed by a relative clause
teasing out a detail of the matter which the king requires and then predicate element is difficult.

Syntax: the syntax of Daniel 2:11a is signaled by the waw prefixed to the opening noun. In this
case, the waw is explanatory, further explicating the caveat in 2:10c.
185

Furthermore, Daniel 2:11a is a nominal clause of classification, where the predicate element is
difficult alerts the reader to what the subject the matter, which the king requires is like, its quality or
character.
186

Lexical: the operative term in the nominal sentence is the advisors depiction of the nature of
Nebuchadnezzars demand; it is difficult [yaqqTr]. The lexicons offer what is rare or what is difficult.
187

The Septuagint translator uses baros, a classical Greek term that means heavy to bear, grievous,
burdensome, oppressive, or weighty.
188

There is something of an disclosure here: These advisors have found themselves in over their
heads and they acknowledge it. Some things about lifes question marks are simply beyond mortal grasp.
There comes a time when even the most advanced interpreters of human events are intellectually bankrupt.
Commenting on the spot these advisors are in, D.S. Russell discerningly remarks:
189

They may try by bluff and blandishment, as with Nebuchadnezzar, to
side-step the intractable problems life throws up or else play for time,
but in the end it will be of no avail. With all their secret learning and
all their accumulated esoteric lore, they cannot even tell the present, far
less the future. They are utterly bankrupt.

At the same time, as noted previously, the bankruptcy of these political gurus and trend spotters
simply sets the stage for Daniel. Daniel will show, beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a source of
wisdom about which the king and his court know nothing.

Daniel 2:11b indeed, there is not another who can make it known to the king is an utterance with
two pauses; the first is: there is not another; and the second is: who can make it known to the king. The
second pause is indicated by an àtnach pointing to the major pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:11b opens with the predicate of the nominal clause of non-existence indeed
another followed by the negated subject of the nominal clause there is not followed by a relative
clause who can make it known to the king.
190

184
The subject of 2:11a is: .- [disjunctive waw, definite article, noun, fm, sg]; the
relative clause is: -. [Peal, participle, ms, sg] ~-- [definite article, noun, ms, sg]
[subordinating conjunction]; and the predicate is: ~ [adjective, fm, sg].
185
For the explanatory use of the waw, see Bauer-Leander 70 r.

186
IBHS 8.4.2a.

187
KB
2
, 1893r; BDB, 1096r; Holladay, 408r.

188
LSJ, 308.

189
J.C.L. Gibson, ed., The Daily Study Bible, Daniel by D.S. Russell (Louisville:
Westminster/John Knox Press, 1981), 37.

190
The predicate is: W. [disjunctive waw, adjective, ms, sg]; the negated subject is:
. [noun, ms, sg, construct with a 3
rd
, ms, suffix] .-; and the relative clause is: .--

[30]

Syntax: Daniel 2:11b is yet another explanation, this time an intensification of the caveat in
2:11a.
191

The use of the participle of non-existence in Daniel 2:11b references human insight as a source of
information for the king; the same construction is used with reference to divine insight, vis--vis the gods.
The repetition should be noted by the reader: There is no answer to be had.

Daniel 2:11c except the gods whose dwelling place is not with mortal flesh is an utterance that
wraps up the advisors portion of the third dialogue.

Grammar: Daniel 2:11c opens with a conjunction except followed by a noun gods and
then rounded off with another relative clause whose dwelling is not with mortal flesh.
192

Syntax: the sentence is shaped by the exceptive use of the conjunction [l~hNn].
193
The
implication of the exceptive phrase is that, while the gods may be able to make the interpretation known to
the king [2:11], the gods are not readily available.

Lexical: there are two items of interest here dwelling place [m
e
d~rhn] and mortal flesh
[bTVr~!].

Dwelling place is a noun that simply designates an abode or a dwelling of some sort.
194
The noun
is used four times in Daniel, once of deities [2:11] and three times of Nebuchadnezzar [4:22, 29; 5:21].

Mortal flesh is probably used collectively, designating humanity in general.
195
When we put all of
this together gods whose dwelling is not with mortal flesh there seems to be something of an evasion
here.

Indeed, in terms of interpreting dreams, it is the case that the gods are available. Under normal
circumstances, these astrologers would use their dream-books to categorize and then interpret the dream.
This much has already been made clear. At the same time, there was another option, which Oppenheim
mentions:
196

The interpreter may turn for verification of proposed interpretations or,
directly, for an unequivocally worded message to the very source of the
dream, that is, to the deity [emphasis mine]. This he may do either by
means of magic practices, by using some kind of oracular apparatus
which provokes the deity to express his will [emphasis mine] through
other media of communication, to visionary experiences and so on.

[definite article, noun, ms, sg] [preposition] ~.W [Pael, imperfect, 3
rd
, ms, 3
rd
, fs, suffix]
[conjunction].

191
For the use of the waw to intensify, see KB
2
, 1862.
192
The opening exceptive phrase is: ~-. [noun, ms, pl] ~- [conjunction]; the
relative clause is: ~=. [noun, ms, sg] .- [negative particle] .O> [definite article, noun,
ms, sg] [preposition] =~ [noun, ms, sg, construct with a 3
rd
, ms, pl]
[conjunction].

193
Bauer-Leander 111 d; Rosenthal 85.

194
KB
2
, 1911r; BDB, 1087r.

195
KB
2
, 1840r; BDB, 1085r.

196
Oppenheim, 221.

[31]

To say that the gods do not dwell with humanity in general is to express a truism, even for these
polytheistic gurus. At the same time, as Professor Oppenheim shows, they should have been aware that
they could reach out to the deity directly. Accordingly, this answer [2:11c] is dumbfounding.

The text does not make clear why these advisors did not use all of the resources they might have.
Speculation on the point is useless. However, this void in our understanding does serve the purpose of
placing in greater relief what Daniel does, when he unhesitatingly reaches out to Yahweh [2:17-24].

Historical conclusion: the outcome Death, 2:12-13.

Translation (2:12) In view of this, the king became enraged, exceedingly furious; thus, he gave orders
to destroy all of the wise men of Babylon. (2:13) Accordingly, the decree went forth that the wise men
were to be slain; so, they sought Daniel and his friends to slay them.

Paragraph sense

(i) [Causative statement] In view of this, the king became enraged, exceedingly furious
(ii) [Result of (i)] thus, he gave orders to destroy all of the wise men of Babylon
(iii) [Result of (ii)] Accordingly, the decree went forth that the wise men were to be slain
(iv) [Result of (ii-iii)] so, they sought Daniel and his friends to slay them

The reader may note the gist of the paragraph Death is decreed. The kings advisors have driven
him to lethal rage, and this is the finale of the four part dialogue between Nebuchadnezzar and his cabinet.

Daniel 2:12a In view of this, the king became enraged, exceedingly furious is a sentence that has
two pauses, one minor, the other major. The minor pause is In view of this pause the king became
enraged, exceedingly furious. The major pausal marker is the àtnach.

Grammar: the utterance begins with the causal construction In view of this followed by the
subject with two verbs the king became enraged-exceedingly furious.
197

Syntax: the syntax of Daniel 2:12a is shaped by the introductory causal construction in view of
this.
198
The basis for the kings rage is unpacked in Daniel 2:11, his advisors refusal to deliver what he
demands in the way of an interpretation of his dream. We are once more left to speculate on the correlation
between the rage [2:12a] and the evasion noted in 2:11c.

The syntactical-semantic thrust of the Peal stems of both verbs became angry and exceedingly
furious suggests intensification of the meaning of the verbal roots of each.
199
What is more, the perfect
aspect of both stative verbs may signal the beginning of the onset of rage; thus, the king became enraged,
exceedingly furious.
200
The net effect is that the evasion, if that is what it was, touches off the rage of the
king.

Lexical: of semantic interest is the emotional reaction of the king to his advisors debacle. He is
angry, furious, and exceedingly so.

197
The causal construction is: ~. [adjective, ms, sg/this] ->-- [conjunction]; the
subject of the two verbs is: .-- [definite article, noun, ms, sg]; and the two verbs are: _l
[Peal, perfect, 3
rd
, ms, sg] and .> [Peal, perfect, 3
rd
, ms, sg].

198
See Rosenthal 86; Bauer-Leander 70 h.

199
See Rosenthal 99; Bauer-Leander 76 d.

200
Comrie, 19.


[32]

Angry [b
e
n>s] is used only here in Daniel, and means simply to become angry or to become
enraged.
201
There are two Septuagint traditions in play here. The Old Greek Version uses stugnos and
Theodotion uses thumos.

The former noun may be used in the sense of hateful or hostile, as well as one who is gloomy or
sullen.
202

The more traditional Greek term thumos is used by Theodotion and may be glossed temper,
anger, and wrath.
203
While there is little difference, Theodotion may be on the right track with the
implication of temper or anger.

Furious [q
e
ts>p] renders an Aramaic and Hebrew term with an interesting pedigree. That is, there
is an Akkadian cognate katsapu that implies to become worried and there is a Syriac cognate q
e
tsap
that may be glossed to be irritated, anxious, or worried.
204
Indeed, the writer has already told us that
Nebuchadnezzar was deeply disturbed by his dream [2:1]. The net effect may be that the language unpeels
another layer of the kings fury; his rage may be goaded by angst.

This last point may be a reason why the Old Greek Version of the Septuagint renders qets>p with
perilupos, a term that is normally translated extreme grief or deeply saddened.
205
At the same time, the
reader should note that Theodotion uses the more normal Greek term for anger org which is translated
anger or wrath, pointing to an element of temperament.
206

In the final analysis, the reader may cautiously read an element of angst in the kings rage, based
on both linguistic and contextual grounds [2:1].

Finally, the writer tacks on an adverb to furious [q
e
ts>p], noting that the king was exceedingly
[V>ggT] furious. There are no surprises here, the adverb simply meaning very,
207
or exceedingly.
208

Daniel 2:12b thus, he gave orders to destroy all the wise men in Babylon is the final utterance in
Daniel 2:12. Again, there are actually two pauses in the reading of the line: thus, he gave orders pause
to destroy all the wise men in Babylon end of sentence. The punctuation leads the reader to concentrate
on the decree he gave orders and the result of the decree to destroy.

Grammar: Daniel 2:12b opens with the verbal construction contained within the first pause
thus, he gave orders to destroy followed by a prepositional phrase all the wise men of Babylon.
209

201
KB
2
, 1836r; Rosenthal, 80; BDB, 1084; Holladay, 400.

202
LSJ, 1657.

203
Ibid., 810.

204
Gale Struthers, _l, in NIDOTTE.

205
LSJ, 1378.

206
Ibid., 1246.

207
Rosenthal 88.

208
BDB, 1113.


[33]

Syntax: the syntax of the line is set up by the verbal construction, since both the waw and the
perfect aspect of the verb may signal result.
210
The net effect of the rage/angst is a decree of death. The
fact of the matter is that this death decree does not differ significantly from the first such decree in Daniel
2:5ff.

Lexical: of lexical interest in Daniel 2:12b is the term wise men [ch>kkTm], which appears for the
first time here in the Aramaic section of Daniel.
211
For the most part, the use of ch>kkTm/wise men in the
Aramaic section of Daniel references a professional class of men who possess and can manipulate occult
knowledge.
212
For the most part, Daniel uses ch>kkTm to portray the limitations of this level of wisdom
[2:12-14, 18, 24, 27; 4:6, 18; 5:5, 8, 15]. In fact, in Daniel 2:27, the prophet explicitly notes that it is
Yahweh who gives wisdom to the ch>kkTm/wise. This tension between human wisdom and divine wisdom
is crucial for understanding Daniel 2-5.

The reader should, therefore, appreciate the import of this term in the context of Daniel 2-5. There
are ch>kkTm/wise men, but, apart from Yahweh, they routinely encounter mysteries they cannot fathom.
What is more, and this is crucial in the unfolding of Daniel 2, Yahweh is the true foundation of all wisdom.
The contrast between merely human wisdom and divinely granted wisdom, the bankruptcy of the former
and the lavishness of the latter, will brook large in Daniel 2-5, especially the great hymn to the wisdom and
might of Yahweh in Daniel 2:20-23.

Daniel 2:13b so, they sought Daniel and his friends to slay them is the final line in Daniel 2:13.

Grammar: the line opens with the main verb
213
so they sought then the direct object Daniel
and his friends and concluding with an infinitive clause to slay them.

Syntax: the line is probably another result sentence, teasing out the consequence of 2:12b.
214

209
Thus, he gave orders to destroy glosses a finite verb . [simple waw, Peal, perfect,
3
rd
, ms, sg] followed by an infinitive construct ~>=~- [preposition, Haphel, infinitive
construct]; the prepositional phrase is: --> -W ---.

210
Bauer-Leander 79 c.
211
The noun [ch>kkTm] appears fourteen times in the Aramaic section of Daniel: 2:12-14, 18, 21,
24 (twice), 27, 48; 4:3, 15; 5:7, 8, 15.

212
On this point, see BDB, 1093r, as well as KB
2
, 1875r.

213
The main verb is => [waw, Peal, perfect, 3
rd
, ms.

214
See Bauer-Leander 79 c.

[34]

Daniel 2:14-16 The Report of Daniels Intervention

Structure: the structure of Daniel 2:14-16 focuses on Daniels conversation with the chief executioner, the
man charged with killing Daniel, his friends, and all the wise men of Babylon. The unit may be set out as a
chiasm:

A Daniel intervenes 2:14
B Daniel inquires 2:15
A Daniel requests 2:16

There is a sense of movement in this chiasm. The opening member 2:14 finds Daniel taking
the initiative with the very man charged with executing him. From here, Daniel prudently probes
concerning the hastiness of this summary execution 2:15. Then, having got the drift from the chief
executioner, Daniel moves on to seek what amounts to a stay of execution from the king 2:16. All in all,
the passage underlines the wisdom and tact in Daniels faith, where his faith takes the initiative to turn the
situation around.

Paragraph sense

(i) [New stage in narrative] Immediately, Daniel spoke with tactful consideration
(ii) [Partner in the dialogue] to Arioch, the chief executioner of the king
(iii) [Closer definition of (ii)] who had gone forth to slay the wise men of Babylon
(iv) [Next phase after (i-iii)] He [Daniel] responded to the situation and said to Arioch, the official
representative of the king:
(v) [Content of (iv)] Why is the decree so hasty from the king?
(vi) [Answer to (v)] Then, Arioch made the situation known to Daniel
(vii) [Consequence of (v-vi)] As a result, Daniel went and requested of the king
(viii) [Details of (vii)] that a period of grace he [the king] would grant to him [Daniel]
(ix) [Purpose of (viii)] so as to make known the interpretation to the king

Genre

Daniel 2:14-16 is a report of Daniels intervention with the king via the chief executioner. As a
report, the paragraph simply details the basic facts concerning this intervention. The reader may read
Daniel 2:14-16 as history. At the same time, as noted above, there is an informative function to this report,
letting the reader in on how Daniels faith moves him to intercede. There are risks here, but Daniel is
willing to take the risk to Yahweh and request compassion from him [2:18]. The reader will note that the
advisors seemed to play for time, but Daniel exercises faith in Yahweh. This contrast is a take-away from
this brief report.

Translation (2:14) Immediately, Daniel spoke with tactful consideration to Arioch, the chief
executioner of the king; who had gone forth to slay the wise men of Babylon. (2:15) He [Daniel]
responded to the situation and said to Arioch, the authoritative representative of the king, Why is the
decree so hasty from the king? Then, Arioch made the situation known to Daniel. (2:16) As a result,
Daniel went and requested of the king; that a period of grace he [the king] would grant him [Daniel], so as
to make the interpretation known to the king.


[35]

Daniel 2:14a Immediately, Daniel spoke with tactful consideration is a line that is punctuated with a
z~qf q~tn, indicating a slight pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:14a opens with an adverb immediately and then the subject of the
sentence Daniel and the main verb spoke and then concludes with two adverbial accusatives with
tactful consideration.
215

Syntax: the use of the adverb immediately signals that Daniel 2:14a opens a new and crucial
stage in the narrative. This adverb is a temporal demonstrative adverb that coordinates 2:14a with the
previous outcome in 2:12-13 in terms of the immediacy of the response.
216

The adverbial accusatives suggest the manner in which Daniel approached his nemesis with
tactful consideration.
217
Goldingay translates the adverbial accusatives with Daniel responded with
shrewd judgment.
218

Lexical: naturally the manner of Daniels response is significant with tactful [e!m]
consideration [!ts~].

The noun glossed consideration denotes advice or counsel under normal circumstances,
219
but this
gloss doesnt seem to work here. The Septuagint translators use boul, a noun that indicates deliberation
as opposed to wrangling, design as opposed to quarreling.
220
Some such gloss as deliberation or
consideration also comports better with the Hebrew cognate, which references a plan, intention, or a
decision.
221
The upshot is that Daniels response was not of the knee-jerk variety, but seems to have been
the result of reflection, deliberation, and intention.

The noun translated tactful points to that which shows discretion or is tactful;
222
Holladay goes
with good sense.
223
In conjunction with the deliberation/consideration that characterized the response, it

215
The adverb is .>/immediately; the main verb is >~/spoke [Haphel, perfect,
3
rd
, ms, sg]; and the adverbial accusatives are /tactful [conjunctive waw, noun, ms, sg] and
./consideration [noun, fm, sg].

216
Rosenthal 89; Bauer-Leander 68 a.

217
See Bauer-Leander 100 i; IBHS 10.2.2e.

218
Goldingay, 30.

219
KB
2
, 1945.

220
LSJ, 325.

221
KB
1
, 867.

222
KB
2
, 1885r; BDB, 1094r.


[36]

was also communicated with tact and discretion. Overall then, as Longman points out, Daniel responds to
this threat with wisdom and tact even when, as in this case, confronted with a threat of gargantuan
proportions.
224

Daniel 2:14b to Arioch, the chief of the executioners of the king is a sentence that is punctuated with
an àtnach, indicating the major pause in the reading of this line.

Grammar: the utterance opens with a prepositional phrase to Arioch followed by an
appositional construction the chief executioner of the king.
225

Syntax: the utterance simply serves to specify to whom Daniel pleads his case, in the first
instance.
226

The appositional construction serves to relate the identity of Arioch chief executioner to the
man more closely than coordination.
227
The construction classifies Arioch as a slaughterer.

Lexical: the origin of the proper name Arioch is of uncertain origin. KB
2
notes that the name
may be of Hurrian origin, possibly something like Arriyuk or Arriwuk, or even of Old Iranian origin.
228

Rosenthal suggests, tentatively, that the name is of Old Persian derivation, possibly Aryaka.
229
This Persian
derivation would certainly fit the cultural context of Daniel 2.
230

The title applied to this man is chief executioner [abb~chayy~]. The noun is used of
executioners, bodyguards, or in the sense of slaughterers.
231
There is an Akkadian cognate to this term that
refers to a slaughterer on a massive scale.
232
The basic idea is that this man was among a group of men
whose principle function for the government was the infliction of capital punishment.
233
Hartman and Di
Lella refer to this man as the Lord High Executioner.
234

223
Holladay, 406r.

224
Longman, 78.
225
The prepositional phrase is =.- [preposition, proper noun]; the appositional
construction consists of: .-- [definite article, noun, ms, sg] [conjunction] .W>
[definite article, noun, ms, pl]> [adjective, ms, sg, construct].

226
For this use of l
e
, see BDB, 1098.

227
Gibson 39; see also Bauer-Leander 93 c.

228
KB
2
, 1824.

229
Rosenthal, 79.

230
On this point, see Baldwin, 89; Collins, Daniel, 158.

231
KB
2
, 1883r.

232
Rykle Borger, Babylonisch-Assyrische Lesestqcke (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblical,
1994), 279.

233
Montgomery, 155.

234

[37]

Daniel 2:14c who had gone forth to slay the wise men of Babylon is the final utterance in Daniel
2:14. The sentence is a relative clause, indicating what Arioch was up to.

Daniel 2:15a He [Daniel] responded to the situation and said to Arioch, the official representative
of the king is an utterance that is punctuated with a z~qf q~tn, pointing to a brief pause in the reading of
the line.

Grammar: the sentence opens with the verbal construction he responded to the situation and
said followed by the indirect object to Arioch and then an appositional construction the official
representative of the king.
235

Syntax: the function of the line syntactically is signaled by the syntax of the two participles,
which are used to indicate the continuation of the action in the narrative.
236

The appositional element official representative is used to further identify and classify who this
man is.
237
Taken with the previous appositional component chief executioner the writer of Daniel
seems to be rhetorically underlining the imposing and commanding status of the man to whom Daniel
pleads his case.

For the sense of respond translated in the sense of to respond to a situation, see BDB, 1107.
Montgomery makes the point that Daniel responds to circumstances.
238
Daniel does not do battle with
personalities, but rather with the state of affairs with which he is faced.

Lexical: the status of Arioch is termed the official representative [>llT]. The term points to
one who has authority and uses it.
239
Holladay notes that the adjective indicates an official who is powerful
and who is authorized to use his power.
240
Philip J. Nel notes that the adjective points to one who has
power and control, glossing the adjective with domineering, a tyrant.
241

Daniel 2:15b Why is the decree so hasty from the king? is the question posed by Daniel and is
punctuated with an àtnach, signaling the major pause in the reading of the line.

235
The verbal construction is . [waw, Peal, participle, ms, sg] ~. [Peal,
participle, ms, sg]; the appositional component is .-- [definite article, noun, ms, sg]
[conjunction] .- [definite article, adjective, ms, sg].

236
Rosenthal 177.

237
Bauer-Leander 93 c.

238
Montgomery, 156.

239
KB
2
, 1995-96; see also BDB, 1115r.

240
Holladay, 423.

241
Philip J. Nel, >llT, in NIDOTTE.


[38]

Grammar: the sentence opens with the interrogative marker why followed by the subject
addressed in the question the decree then followed with the verbal element in the question isso
hasty and then the prepositional phrase of origin from the king.
242

Syntax: the syntax of the interrogative marker seeks to discern the basis for the hastiness of the
decree.
243

Lexical: the sense of the verbal component isso hasty is a bit tricky. There are two options.
The root from which this verb is taken is typically translated with to show insolence, to show harshness, to
be overbearing, or to be audacious.
244
KB follows suit and translates our passage with to be harsh,
245
as
does Holladay who goes with to be severe.
246

Rosenthal demurs and opts for urgent in our passage.
247

The Septuagint translators are equally divided. The Old Greek Version opts for a term that means
disposed to harshness/bitterness;
248
while Theodotion goes with a term that may be translated reckless.
249

The term is used twice in Daniel, here and in Daniel 3:22, where the sense of urgency seems to fit
best.

The commentaries are equally divided. Some go with harsh,
250
others opt for hasty, or something
akin to it.
251

Ultimately, only the context can disambiguate this term, and frankly, the context seems to be of
little help. The Guidebook goes with hasty for the following two reasons. First, it seems a bit unwise to
speak to the official representative of the king and call his bosss decree insolent, harsh, or severe. Indeed,
we have been told that Daniel approached this man with tactful consideration, and calling the decree harsh
or insolent does not seem to ring of tact. Beyond the immediate context, the use of the term in Daniel 3:22
is a bit clearer and does indicate that Nebuchadnezzar could be hasty in meting out punishment. This point
needs to be given due consideration by the reader.

At the same time, the reader will certainly agree that to send the Lord High Executioner to
slaughter the nations intellectual elite does seem a bit severe. As a matter of fact, such an assessment is
true. This point should be kept in mind by the reader.

Daniel 2:15c so, Arioch made the situation known to Daniel is the final utterance in Daniel 2:15.

242
The interrogative marker is ~-; the verbal component is ~lW~ [Haphel,
participle, fm, sg].

243
Bauer-Leander 103 a.
244
BDB, 1093r.

245
KB
2
, 1879r.

246
Holladay, 406r.

247
Rosenthal, 85.

248
LSJ, pikrs, 1403.

249
LSJ, anaids, 105.

250
Russell, 42; Longman, 70; Goldingay, 31; Young, 64.

251
Slotki, 11; Baldwin, 89; Montgomery, 156; Collins, Daniel, 158.


[39]

Grammar: 2:15c opens with the adverb so followed by the direct object of the verb the
situation followed by the verb made known and the subject Arioch and then finally the indirect
object to Daniel.
252

Syntax: the syntax of 2:15c is largely governed by the introductory adverb. In this case, the
adverb is used as a coordinating conjunction to signal a result, in the sense of then or so.
253

Lexical: when the writer tells us that Arioch made known the situation to Daniel, the Haphel stem
of the verb retains its causative nuance.
254
The upshot is that Arioch communicates with Daniel in the
sense of making him aware of the situation.
255

We are not told why Daniel is unaware of this situation. Montgomery remarks that a good story
does not explain every detail.
256

Daniel 2:16a So, Daniel went and requested of the king is a sentence that is punctuated with an

Grammar: the sentence opens with the subject so, Daniel followed by the verbal component
went and requested followed by a prepositional phrase.
257

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:16a is to indicate the next event in the narrative.
258

The verbal construction went and requested uses the perfect aspect to signal an historical
perfect, where the perfect simply narrates the events as they actually occurred.
259
The reader should note
the fact that Daniel takes the initiative in approaching the king for a stay of execution. As Young points
out, this demonstrates both faith and humility on Daniels part.
260

Daniel 2:16b that a period of grace he would grant him is a sentence that is punctuated with a z~qf
q~tn, indicating a slight pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: the line opens with the relative marker that followed by the direct object of the
verb a period of grace and then the verb with indirect object he would grant him.
261

252
The adverb is .; the main verb is =~ [Haphel, perfect, 3
rd
, ms].

253
Rosenthal 85, 89.
254
Rosenthal 99; Bauer-Leander 36 h; 76 k.

255
See KB
2
, 1889; BDB, 1095 [to inform].

256
Montgomery, 154.

257
The verbal construction is: ~> [Peal, perfect, 3
rd
, ms, sg] - [Peal, perfect, 3
rd
, ms, sg].

258
For this use of the waw on -../so, Daniel, see KB
2
, 1862.

259
Bauer-Leander 79 h; GKC 106 e; the reader may follow the scholarly debate on whether
Daniel had a proper introduction in order to speak with the king. He certainly does so in 2:25. The writer
is simply silent on this particular detail.

260
Young, 65.

261
The term glossed period of grace is [noun, ms, sg]; and the verb is: . [Peal,
imperfect, 3
rd
, ms].


[40]

Syntax: syntactically, Daniel 2:16b functions to tease out the gist of the request sought by Daniel
in 2:16a.
262

Lexical: of lexical interest, we find two terms period of grace and would grant. The noun
glossed period of grace [z
e
m~n] suggests a postponement.
263

Essentially, the z
e
m~n simply indicates a specified time for some event to occur.
264
KB follows
suit, more or less, offering a moment, a fixed time, a period of grace, or simply a respite.
265
Borger notes
that an Akkadian cognate sim~nu indicates a deadline.
266
Deadline comports well with a specified time
and a fixed time. As Anthony Tomasino notes, z
e
m~n suggests a predetermined period of time for some
event to occur.
267

Accordingly, while the Guidebook translates z
e
m~n with a period of grace, which from Daniels
point of view it was, the reader should not infer that he went to the king and sought grace in the form of a
postponement. On the contrary, Daniel approaches Nebuchadnezzar and simply asks for a predetermined
amount of time in which to interpret the dream. The high level of faith in Yahweh is self-evident to the
reader. Daniel is staking his life, and the lives of his comrades, on Yahweh; Daniel will not be
disappointed.

Furthermore, in the ebb and flow of the storyline, the contrast with the advisors is well-defined.
The advisors had played for time, hoping that something anything would change; Daniel asks for a
predetermined period of time, knowing that Yahweh would not abandon him to his fate. Trust in Yahweh
as opposed to reliance on chance and circumstances separates Daniel from the advisors.

Daniel 2:16c so as to make known the interpretation to the king is the final utterance in 2:16.

Grammar: the line opens with the direct object of the verb so as tothe interpretation
followed by the verbal element to make known and then a final prepositional phrase to the king.
268

Syntax: the syntax of the line is shaped by the infinitive construct, signaling purpose.
269
Daniel
seeks his stay of execution in order to interpret the dream for Nebuchadnezzar. The reader will note that
Daniel intends to interpret the dream before he actually knows anything about it. In 2:18a, Daniel will refer
to this dream episode as a mystery. Clearly, Daniels faith in Yahweh stands out in clear relief in this line.

262
Bauer-Leander 109 d.

263
Holladay, 404r.
264
BDB, 1091r.

265
KB
2
, 1866r.

266
Borger, 271.

267
Anthony Tomasino, z
e
m~n, in NIDOTTE.

268
The verbal component is an infinitive phrase: ~W~- [preposition, Haphel, infinitive
construct].

269
Bauer-Leander 85 e; Gibson 107.

[41]

Daniel 2:17-24 The Report of Yahwehs Revelation

Structure: the structure of Daniel 2:17-24 may be understood in terms of the repetition of the adverb
immediately/thereupon in Daniel 2:17a, 19a, 19b followed by the causal construction because of this
in 2:24a. The report may be organized chiastically in this way:

A Immediate request for compassion from Yahweh concerning the mystery [2:17-18]
B Immediate revelation of the mystery [2:19a]
B Immediate hymn of praise to Yahweh [2:19b-23d] [Centerpiece]
A Because of this, Daniel goes to Arioch [2:24a-24f]

In the opening element of the chiasm [2:17-18], Daniel and company address Yahweh, requesting
grace in the form of understanding.

Then, within the two inner members of the chiasm, we have the answer provided in a brief and
terse statement [2:19a] and we have the hymn of praise to the power and wisdomof Yahweh [2:19b-23d].
This hymn of praise contains what amounts to one of the main theses in the entire book of Daniel It is
Yahweh who changes times and epochs [2:21a]; it is Yahweh who deposes rulers and appoints them
[2:21b]. Moreover, this hymn also develops another main thesis of the book of Daniel It is Yahweh who
grants wisdom and insight to the wise concerning His sovereign oversight of human history [2:21c-23b].
As noted above, Daniel 2:19b-23d is the centerpiece of the paragraph.

Then, finally, armed with the insight into the mystery concerning the dream, Daniel addresses
Arioch in order to witness to Nebuchadnezzar that which Yahweh has revealed to Daniel [2:24a-f].

Paragraph sense

(i) [Immediate response to 2:14-16] I mmediately, Daniel went to his house
(ii) [Details concerning (i)] to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, his comrades, he made the matter
known
(iii) [Purpose of (ii)] in order to request compassion before the presence of the God of heaven
concerning this mystery
(iv) [Purpose sought from (iii)] so that Daniel and his comrades would not be destroyed with the rest
of the wise men of Babylon
(v) [Immediate outcome of (i-iv)] I mmediately, the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a night vision
(vi) [Immediate outcome of (v)] I mmediately, Daniel praised the God of heaven
(vii) [Daniels praise in light of (vi)] Daniel responded and said
(viii) [Benediction to the Name of Yahweh] Let the name of Yahweh be praised for ever and ever
(ix) [Reason for the benediction] for wisdom and power His
(x) [Explication of reason] Hechanges times and epochs, deposing kings and appointing kings
(xi) [Second reason for the benediction] Heprovides wisdom to the wise, and understanding to
those who know discernment
(xii) [Explication of (xi)] Hereveals deep and hidden things
(xiii) [Explication of (xii)] Heknows what is in obscurity
(xiv) [Explication of (xiii)] for light dwells with Him
(xv) [Thanks and praise] To You, God of my fathers, I give thanks and praise

[42]

(xvi) [Reason for (xv)] for, wisdom and power You have given me
(xvii) [Explication of (xvi)] even now, You have made known to me what we asked of You
(xviii) [Explication of (xvii)] for, the matter concerning the king You have made known
(xix) [Outcome of (i-xviii)] Because of this, Daniel went to Arioch
(xx) [Explication of person in (xix)] whom the king had appointed to execute the wise men of Babylon
(xxi) [Outcome of (i-xviii)] he [Daniel] went and thus spoke to him [Arioch]
(xxii) [Request] Do not execute the wise men of Babylon
(xxiii) [Second request] bring me before the king
(xxiv) [Promise contingent on (xxiii) and I will make clear the interpretation to the king.

Genre

Daniel 2:17-24 features mixed genres. The demarcation of the paragraph is signaled by the
repetition of the adverb immediately in 2:17, 2:19a, and 2:19b and then the causal statement in 2:24.

The genre of the first two units in the paragraph [2:17-18 and 2:19] is basically a report of what
Daniel immediately did and then what Yahweh immediately did in response. As a report, these two units
simply provide the details of Daniels response to the events in 2:14-16. As with previous reports, there is
an informative component, letting the reader in on the faith of Daniel [2:17-18] as well as the faithfulness of
Yahweh [2:19a].

The genre of the centerpiece Daniel 2:19b-23d is a hymn of praise. In this case, the hymn of
praise is best read as descriptive praise of Yahweh [2:20b-c] that leads into declarative praise of Yahweh
[2:21a-23]. The descriptive praise of Yahweh exalts the being and attributes of Yahweh [2:20b-c], which
in turn become active and relevant in Daniels predicament [2:21-23].
270
Then, the declarative praise of
Yahweh extols what God does in the life of Daniel at this crucial moment [2:21-23].
271

The net effect is that we have a hymn of praise of who God is:

Let the nameof Yahweh be praised for ever and ever [2:20b]
Wisdomand power His [2:20c]

Then, we have a hymn of praise for what Yahweh does:

Hechanges times and epochs [2:21a] [In praise of His power]
Deposing kings and appointing kings [2:21b]

Heprovides wisdom [2:21c] [In praise of His wisdom]
Hereveals deep and hidden things [2:22a]
He knows what is in obscurity [2:22b]
Wisdom and power You have given me [2:23b]
You have made known to me what we asked of You [2:23c]
The matter concerning the king, You have made known [2:23d]

The genre of the concluding unit [2:24] is petition, a request from Daniel to Arioch for a definite
response.
272

270
For the genre of descriptive praise, see Claus Westermann, Praise and Lament in the Psalms,
translated by Keith Crim and Richard Soulen (Atlanta: John Know Press, 1981; reprint), 122-23.

271
Ibid., 102.

272
Collins, Forms, 116.

[43]

The reader will take note of the crucial position of the centerpiece the praise of Yahweh for the
life and crisis that Daniel faces. Who God is and what God does really matter and this magnificent hymn
of praise to Yahweh makes this point abundantly clear.

This centerpiece is also worlds apart from the capabilities of the best and the brightest who advise
Nebuchadnezzar. They are silent; Daniel will interpret.

Translation (2:17) Immediately, Daniel went to his house and made the situation known to Hananiah,
Mishael, and Azariah, his comrades (2:18) in order to request compassion before the presence of God,
concerning the mystery; so that Daniel and his comrades would not be destroyed with the rest of the wise
men of Babylon. (2:19) Immediately, the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a night vision; immediately,
Daniel praised to God of heaven. (2:20) Daniel responded and said: Let the name of God be praised, for
ever and ever; for, wisdom and power, which are His. (2:21) For, He changes times and epochs, deposing
kings and appointing kings; He provides wisdom to the wise, and understanding to those who know
discernment. (2:22) He reveals deep and hidden things; He knows what is in obscurity, for light dwells
with Him. (2:23) To You, the God of my fathers, I [give] thanks and praise, for wisdom and power you
have given me; even now, You have made known to me what we asked of You, for the situation concerning
the king, You have made known. (2:24) Because of this, Daniel went to Arioch, he went and spoke thus to
him: Do not execute the wise men of Babylon; bring me before the king and I will make clear the
interpretation to the king.

Immediate request for compassion concerning the mystery, 2:17-18

Daniel 2:17a Immediately, Daniel went to his house is a sentence punctuated with an àtnach,
signaling the major pause in the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:17a opens with the adverb immediately followed by the subject Daniel
and the prepositional phrase to his house and finally the main verb went.
273

Syntax: the syntax of the line is shaped by the adverb, which syntactically signals the next event
in the narrative of the storyline.
274
This temporal adverb opens a new stage in a narrative with some level
of emphasis, hence the gloss immediately.

Daniel 2:17b and he made the situation known to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, his comrades
is the final utterance in Daniel 2:17.

Grammar: the sentence opens with the indirect object of the action in the line and to Hananiah,
Mishael, and Azariah followed by an appositional term his comrades then the direct object of the verb
the situation and the verb he made known.
275

Syntax: the opening waw in the line signals the next event in the thread of the discourse.

273
The adverb is .; the main verb is -. [Peal, perfect, 3
rd
, ms].

274
See Rosenthal 89; Bauer-Leander 68 a.

275
The appositional term is ~=>W [noun, ms, pl, construct with a 3
rd
, ms, suffix]; the
diect object is .- [definite article, noun, fm, sg]; and the main verb is =~ [Haphel, perfect,
3
rd
, ms].


[44]

Lexical: the importance of using the Hebrew names in this sentence lies with their seeking, as
Jews, the intervention of Yahweh in the form of insight.
276

The term translated situation [mTll>] simply points to matters as they stand or the affair at
hand.
277

Daniel 2:18a in order to request compassion before the presence of the God of heaven concerning
this mystery is a sentence that is punctuated with an àtnach, indicating the major pause in the line.

Grammar: 2:18a opens with the infinitive phrase in order to request compassion followed by
a prepositional phrase before the presence of the God of heaven and then another prepositional phrase
concerning this mystery.
278

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:18a is to tease out the purpose behind Daniel
apprising his comrades of how things stood with Nebuchadnezzar.
279

The syntax of the first prepositional phrase before the presence of the God of heaven is a way
of indicating location in a less direct and respectful way.
280
These four Jews approach God in humility and
meekness, not with the kind of overconfidence indicated by the other wise men of Babylon, at least initially
[2:4, 7]. While they knew where they would be [location], they approach God with deference and
reverence.

The syntax of the definite article should also be noted. That is, the construct relation has a definite
article on the second member of the construct the heaven thus making the entire construction definite
the God of heaven. The point is significant for the outlook of these four in a society dominated by
polytheism. As Joyce Baldwin notes, this was a fitting title for the true God in a country where astral
worship was practiced.
281
In spite of the competing and varied views of God/god, these four retained an
unflinching hold on their monotheism.

Lexical: to begin with, the reader will note that these four requested compassion. Their purpose
was firm: they would request mercy from Yahweh. The verb glossed request [b
e
!>] is straightforward,
indicating to seek or to request.
282
An Akkadian cognate means to search.
283
The lexical point is that these

276
On this point, see Baldwin, 89.

277
BDB, 1100.
278
The infinitive phrase is: .>- [preposition, Peal, infinitive construct] W=
[waw, noun, ms, pl]; before the presence of the God of heaven renders . [definite article, noun,
ms, pl] ~-. [noun, ms, sg, construct] [preposition with a particle]; the final
prepositional phrase is: ~. [adjective, ms, sg] ~ [definite article, noun, ms, sg]-
[preposition].

279
For the infinitive construct used to signal purpose, see Rosenthal 79; Bauer-Leander 85.

280
Rosenthal 84.

281
Baldwin, 89-90.

282
KB
2
, 1836.

283
Ibid.

[45]

four are not presuming on God, nor are they demanding an answer from Him. The gloss request carries
forward the humility theme in their prayer.

The term translated compassion [r~cham] is in the plural in Aramaic, suggesting an intensive
plural.
284
This intensification may imply abundant compassion or exceptional compassion, possibly
thorough compassion.
285

As a quick check of the lexicons will show, r~cham is also associated with the female womb,
when the root is used in the singular.
286
It does not require a great stretch of the imagination to see a
connection between the love and compassion attributed to the female womb as a place of birth and
compassion in the abstract. While this is the only occurrence of the noun in the Aramaic of Daniel, the
Hebrew noun is well attested in the Old Testament.

Compassion/ r~cham is an emotional term in the Old Testament, as when Joseph was overcome
with r~cham upon seeing his long-lost brothers [Genesis 43:30].

When Yahweh shows r~cham, it is part and parcel with the Covenant arrangement between
Himself and His people [Isaiah 54:7-10]. That Yahweh shows Himself compassionate is a provision, from
His side, of the Holy Covenant.

Moreover, when Yahweh shows r~cham, His compassion supersedes His wrath; in other words,
compassion means going beyond what one may deserve [Deuteronomy 13:17; 1 Kings 8:50; 2 Chronicles
30:9; Nehemiah 9:27-28; Isaiah 54:7; Hosea 2:19]. To be sure, it is this r~cham/compassion that goes
beyond what one deserves or may reasonably expect that informs Daniels prayer of confession in Daniel
9:9, 18.

Yahwehs r~cham/compassion is tantamount to His faithful love, which has been one of His chief
attributes eternally [Psalm 25:6], and it is this r~cham/compassion that rests over everything that Yahweh
has made [Psalm 145:9]. What is more, this Divine r~cham/compassion may be relied upon to guard the
faithful [Psalm 40:11], and to prompt Yahweh to turn to one who seeks Him [Psalm 69:16].

The net effect is that the r~cham/compassion that Daniel and his three fellow prayer-partners place
trust in implies grace. These four place their trust in Yahweh, who normally gives beyond what one may
expect or certainly deserves. Moreover, they are also placing trust in Yahweh whose r~cham/compassion
rests over them and even guards them. After all, all of them are members of the Covenant with Yahweh.
Obviously, r~cham/compassion is part and parcel with the humility theme in this verse.

The object in seeking grace from Yahweh is the hope that Yahweh will provide insight into what
Daniel calls this mystery [r~z]. Most of the English versions translate r~z with mystery or secret or secret
mystery. Whatever r~z may mean, one thing is certain: For all of the wise men of Babylon, this mystery is
beyond human comprehension.

The lexicons translate r~z with secret or simply mystery.
287
Later, in the Qumran material, r~z
would be used to identify an enigma that can only be interpreted by Gods revelation and particularly for

284
Bauer-Leander 87 e, j.

285
GKC 124 e.

286
KB
2
, 1981; BDB, 933.

287
See KB
2
, 1980r; Rosenthal 189; BDB, 1112r; Holladay, 421.


[46]

Gods hidden purposes in history, despite its sin.
288
The sense of Gods hidden purposes in history does
seem to fit the context well here. Indeed, the remainder of the uses of r~z in the Aramaic section of Daniel
supports the sense of mystery as that which only Yahweh is party to and reveals as He sees fit [Daniel 2:19,
27-30, 47; 4:6].

Daniel 2:18b so that Daniel and his comrades would not be destroyed, with the rest of the wise
men of Babylon is the final sentence in Daniel 2:18.

Grammar: The sentence opens with a subordinating conjunction so that followed by the main
verb in the line would not be destroyed and then the subject of the verb Daniel and his friends and
concluded with a prepositional phrase with the rest of the wise men of Babylon.
289

Syntax: the syntax of Daniel 2:18b is governed by the function of the subordinating conjunction,
signaling purpose.
290
Daniel is quite open about the motive/purpose behind his prayer request [2:18a].

The syntactical-semantic thrust of the Haphel stem of the verb suggests causation;
291
the
implication is that these four had no intention whatsoever of submitting to capital punishment.

The reader should note the prepositional phrase. The preposition [!Tm] may be translated together
with;
292
these four are not merely looking out for their own skins. The prepositional phrase implies some
level of compassion on the part of these exiled Jews for their colleagues.

Lexical: the sense of the main verb be destroyed is fairly straightforward. In the Peal stem,
~bad may be translated to slay; in the Haphel, causative, stem, the sense becomes to cause to perish or
more smoothly to destroy.
293

Immediate revelation of the mystery, 2:19

Daniel 2:19a Immediately, the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a night vision is a sentence that is
punctuated with an àtnach, signaling the major break in the reading of the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:19a begins with the adverb immediately followed by a prepositional
phrase indicating the recipient of the revelation to Daniel followed by a second prepositional phrase

288
Longman, 47.
289
The subordinating conjunction is /so that; the main verb is >~ [Haphel,
imperfect, 3
rd
, ms, pl]; and the prepositional phrase uses the preposition with the object of the
preposition in the form of a construct chain: ->> -W [noun, ms, pl, construct]/the wise men
of Babylon . [noun, ms, sg, construct]/the rest of.

290
For the use of to signal purpose, see Bauer-Leander 70 c.

291
Bauer-Leander 76 i-n.

292
KB
2
, 1950.

293
Ibid., 1806.


[47]

indicating the manner of the revelation in a night vision and then the subject of the main verb the
mystery with the verb was revealed.
294

The reader will note that the translation offered has been smoothed out for the sake of the English
reader. Literally, we have: immediately-to Daniel-in a night vision-the mystery-was revealed. As we shall
note in the syntax section, the word order as written does have importance.

Syntax: Daniel 2:19a opens with the adverb immediately a particle that stresses both the next
event in the sequence of events beginning in 2:17 as well as some level of emphasis; hence, the translation
immediately.
295
The chain of events in the narrative from 2:17a immediately Daniel went to his house
to 2:18a in order to request compassion to 2:19a immediately the mystery was revealed work
together to emphasize both the faith of Daniel [2:17a-18a] and the faithfulness of Yahweh [2:19a].

As noted above, the word order in the Aramaic sentence may be suggestive: immediately-to
Daniel-in a night vision. The front-loaded terms to Daniel-in a night vision seem to put the focus of the
sentence on Daniel.
296
The force of this focusing may be disambiguated by the prepositional phrase in a
night vision. That is, as we shall note, the night vision is fairly normal for revelation to a prophet.
Accordingly, the front-loading may also indicate the exclusive role of Daniel as prophet in this
revelation.
297

The manner of this revelation comes in a night vision. The preposition [b
e
] is used in this case to
signal the means or method of the revelation.
298
The means of insight differs appreciably from that of
Daniels Babylonian counterparts. There may be two implications here. First, as already noted, Daniel is
singled out by Yahweh for this bit of insight; the net effect is that, as advisors to the king go, Daniel is
exceptional. Second, this means of revelation may also suggest that some issues confronting political
leaders are comprehensible only by means of Divine aid by means of Divine insight.

Lexical: there are two matters of lexical interest night vision and was revealed. The reference to
night vision uses a term for night that routinely points to night as a time for a vision.
299
Furthermore, the
noun glossed vision is used twelve times in the Aramaic Old Testament, all of them in Daniel.
300

In general, chz| is translated vision or appearance;
301
it may also carry with it the idea of a
vision, as a mode of revelation.
302
Hartman and Di Lella point out that chz| implies a God-given

294
The adverb is ./immediately; the second prepositional phrase is .--
[definite article, noun, ms, sg] .W> [preposition, definite article, noun, ms, sg]/in a/the
night vision; and the main verb is -- [Peil, perfect, 3
rd
, ms, sg].
295
See Rosenthal 89; Bauer-Leander 68 a, for the gloss immediately.

296
Van der Merwe 47.2.(i).

297
Ibid., 47.2.(i).b.

298
For this use of this preposition, see Bauer-Leander 69 b; Rosenthal 77; KB
2
, 1830 [through
or by means of].

299
For this use of this noun in this sense, see KB
2
, 1909; see also Daniel 7:2, 7, 13.

300
Daniel 2:19, 28; 4:2, 6, 7, 10; 7:1, 2, 7, 13, 15.

301
Rosenthal 85.


[48]

revelation as opposed to a mere dream.
303
The reader should appreciate that the use of chz|/vision in
terms of Daniel places him on par with other Old Testament prophets who had visions as modes of Divine
revelation, including Isaiah, Amos, Micah, and Nahum.

Regarding the main verb was revealed the syntactical-semantic thrust of the Peil stem should
be noted. Specifically, the function of the Peil stem of this verb is to underscore the passive nature of the
revelation, at least as far as Daniel was concerned.
304
The agent of this vision is made clear in Daniel 2:23
Yahweh.

Finally, the lexical impact of was revealed teases out the point made about the vision as a means
of Divine revelation. We have already noted the nuance of the Peil stem of the verb, which suggests that
Daniel was granted this revelation by an unnamed agent. Daniel was simply passive in the transaction. In
basic terms, the verb glossed reveal implies that something is opened and made clear.
305
Bauer-Leander
glosses this verb to become obvious.
306
The upshot is that what had been a complete mystery to Daniel was
opened up and made abundantly clear as a Divine act of gracious response to prayer.

Daniel 2:19b immediately, Daniel praised the God of Heaven is the final utterance in Daniel 2:19.

Grammar: Daniel 2:19b opens, again, with the adverb immediately followed by the subject of
the main verb Daniel then the main verb praised with the direct object of Daniels praise the God
of Heaven.
307

Syntax: the syntax of the adverb immediately has already been mentioned. The reader should
note well how rapidly events have been moving for Daniel. Once Daniel is informed of the death sentence
that hangs over him and his fellows, he immediately goes home to inform his prayer partners [2:17a]; then,
they petition Yahweh for compassion [2:18] and immediately Yahweh answers [2:19a] and just as
immediately Daniel praises God in thanksgiving [2:19b]. One gets the impression that not much time is
wasted. The need is immediate; the petition is correspondingly immediate; the answer is just as immediate,
as is also the immediacy of praise.

The reader should not over-interpret this fast-flowing sequence of events; things do not always fall
in place so quickly and neatly, even for Daniel. Indeed, later in chapter 8 and then again in chapter 12,
Daniel will receive visions that, for all intents and purposes, seem to utterly baffle him.

Finally, the reader should take note of the repetition of the verb praised [2:19b] in Daniel 2:20b.
The repetition tells us that the substance of Daniels praise in 2:19b is teased out more fully in 2:20-23.

An immediate hymn of praise to Yahweh, 2:19b-23d

302
BDB, 1092r.

303

304
On the Peil stem, see Bauer-Leander 47 s.

305
See David M. Howard, Jr., ~--, in NIDOTTE.

306
Bauer-Leander 47 t.

307
The main verb in the sentence is > [Pael, perfect, 3
rd
, ms].

[49]

As we have noted, this unit Daniel 2:19b-23d is a two part hymn of praise. Descriptively, the
hymn praises God for who He is and paramount here is wisdom and power, which are His [2:20b-c].
Declaratively, Daniel then turns to praise Yahweh for what He does in human history [2:21a-23d]. The
close relationship between who God is [2:20b-c] and what God does [2:21a-23d] may be set out thus:

In praise of who God is:

Let the nameof Yahweh be praised forever and ever [2:20b]
For wisdomand power, which are His [2:20c]

In praise of what God does:

First, in terms of His power:

He changes times and epochs [2:21a]
Deposing kings and appointing kings [2:21b]

Then, in terms of His wisdom:

He provides wisdom[2:21c]
He reveals deep and hidden things [2:22a]
He knows what is in obscurity [2:22b]
Wisdomand power You have given me [2:23b]
You have made known to me what we asked of You [2:23c]
The matter concerning the king, You have made known [2:23d]

Obviously, the common denominators between who God is and what God does are wisdom and
power. In terms of power, Yahweh is Lord of history [2:21a], including those who seem, but only seem, to
dominate human history [2:21b]. In terms of wisdom, Yahweh is its source [2:21c]; indeed Yahweh is the
fount of the kind of wisdom that knows no bounds [2:22a-b]. At the same time, Yahweh does not hoard
this wisdom, but freely provides it to those who seek [2:23b-d].

The reader of the book of Daniel should ponder deeply this hymn of praise to Yahweh. Indeed,
this hymn of praise may well be the theme of the entire book. For, as we have seen in Daniel 1 and shall
note to the end of the book, in one way or another Yahweh is, in fact, Lord of human history. The reader
may learn to appreciate Daniel anew if the chapters in Daniel are re-read and appreciated for their
testimony to Yahwehs sovereign Lordship of human history.

At the same time, the failure of kings, beginning with Nebuchadnezzar, to fully grasp that wisdom
resides with Yahweh is part of the warning carried forward throughout the book. One can read the various
crises in governance that blight the political leadership in the book of Daniel and readily perceive the cause:
Leaders really do not listen very well to Yahweh or His spokespersons when they actually impart wisdom.

To be sure, at this juncture, Daniel 2, the government of Nebuchadnezzar is in crisis, at least as far
as Nebuchadnezzar is concerned. This crisis is founded on the dearth of wisdomoffered up by his closest
cabinet advisors regarding a very disturbing dream. God will make all clear, through Daniel, but the
question is: Will the king grasp the larger point behind the wisdomof God is the power of God. Let the
story unfold.


[50]

In praise of who God is [2:20b-c]

Daniel 2:20b Let the name of God be praised, forever and ever is a sentence that is punctuated
with a z~qf q~tn, signaling a minor pause or break in the reading of the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:20b opens with verbal element let be followed by the object of the verb
the name of God followed by the verbal compliment be praised and wrapped up with a prepositional
phrase forever and ever.
308

Syntax: the syntax of 2:20b is shaped by the jussive sense of the verbal construction. The
construction probably signals a benediction.
309
The benediction is, in effect, the will of the speaker to
praise God, to express in solemn words ones appreciation, gratitude, honor, recognition
310
for the
gracious answer to prayer.

Lexical: the reader naturally focuses on the sense of the verbal element be praised [m
e
b~r>k].
The Pael stem of this verb may signal intensification of the sense of the verbal stem.
311
This
intensification suggests passion or concentration in praising God for His grace.

The lexicons translate praise/ m
e
b~r>k with to bless or to praise.
312
The Septuagint tradition uses
the Greek verb euloge for m
e
b~r>k. The Greek verb suggests to speak well of, to deliver a panegyric
313

upon, or simply to honor.
314
C.A. Keller notes that when euloge is used for b~r>k when addressing God,

308
The verbal construction is > [Pael, participle, ms, sg] .~- [Peal, imperfect,
3
rd
, ms, jussive sense]; the direct object is .~-. [noun, ms, sg, determined] [relative] ~
[noun, ms, sg, construct with a 3
rd
, ms, suffix].

309
For the jussive, see Bauer-Leander 78 s; for the jussive used to signal a benediction, see
IBHS 34.3c and Gibson 67.

310
Goldingay, 47.

311
Bauer-Leander 76 d.

312
KB
2
, 1839; Holladay, 400, simply goes with to bless; BDB, 1085, offers to kneel, bless, praise.

313
A panegyric is a literary expression of high praise.

314
LSJ, 720.


[51]

the language expresses joyous exclamation of thanksgiving and admiration.
315
Obviously the bases for
this joyous cry of gratitude and honor are teased out in the substance of the hymn, beginning with the next
line [2:20c].

Daniel 2:20c for, wisdom and power, which are His is the final sentence in Daniel 2:20.

Grammar: the utterance opens with a relative marker for followed by the two subjects of the
clause wisdom and power and ending with a relative clause which are His.
316

Syntax: Daniel 2:20c introduces the reason or the cause of the praise in 2:20b.
317
The final
relative clause seems to underline the fact that wisdom and power are unique attributes of Yahweh.
318

Lexical: of obvious lexical moment are wisdom and power. We should begin with an observation
on the use of these two terms wisdom and power as they are used together in Daniel.

That is, the collocation wisdom and power is used here in Daniel 2:20c and then at the end of
the hymn in 2:23c. The upshot of this is that wisdom and power form an inclusion that brackets the hymn.
Specifically, in 2:20, wisdom and power are attributes of Yahweh; in 2:23, wisdom and power become
attributes of Daniel, thanks to Yahweh. Whatever else wisdom and power mean, it is clear that Yahweh
does not keep a tight grasp on His wisdom and power but rather shares them with those who seek Him.

Outside the Aramaic section of the Old Testament, this precise collocation wisdom and power
appears only in Job 12:13. But, insofar as the collocation is used of God, it is worthy of attention.

Job 12:13 affirms that [1] with Him wisdom and power and [2] to Him belong counsel and
understanding. The reader can readily appreciate the parallelism here, which essentially helps clarify
wisdom and power.

In order to understand how the poetry works at this point, lets note that with Him wisdom and
power // to Him belongs counsel and understanding uses semantic parallelism. In the A-line, wisdom is
semantically parallel to counsel in the B-line; and power in the A-line is semantically parallel to
understanding in the B-line. Beyond the fact of semantic parallelism is the function of semantic parallels.
To this end, Robert Alter writes, concerning the use of semantic parallelism that the characteristic

315
Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, translated by
Mark E. Biddle, vol. 1 (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997), 269 [hereafter abbreviated TLOT
1
, TLOT
2
or TLOT
3
for each of the three volumes respectively].
316
The subjects of the utterance are .>- [conjunction, definite article, noun, sg, fm]
and .-W [definite article, noun, sg, fm]; the concluding relative clause is .~ [personal
pronoun, 3
rd
, fm, sg]~- [preposition, 3
rd
, ms, sg, pronominal suffix] [relative marker].

317
For this use of the relative marker , see Rosenthal 86; Bauer-Leander 70 g.

318
See KB
2
, 1851; Bauer-Leander 108 s.


[52]

movement of meaning is one of heightening or intensification of focusing, specification, concretization,
even what could be called dramatization.
319
We can schematize the A-line and B-line thus:

With Him wisdom and power [12:13a] General statement
To Him belongs counsel and understanding [12:13b] Specification/concretization

The clarification of wisdom and strength tells us that these are concretized in the real world as
Yahwehs counsel and understanding. To put the same thing another way, if we can comprehend counsel
and understanding, then we may gain a firmer hold on Yahwehs wisdom and power.

The noun glossed counsel [!ts>] is essentially deliberation, careful thinking and planning, the
resolution arrived at by such thought.
320
The means that the concretization of Yahwehs wisdom takes the
form of resolution arrived at through deliberation. The impression one gets here is that Yahwehs wisdom
is worked out, in the real world, by means of a carefully thought out plan.

Furthermore, the noun translated understanding [t
e
b|n>] suggests the pragmatic, applied, aspect
of thought, operation in the realm of action; t
e
b|n> aims at efficacy and accomplishment.
321
In a
nutshell, t
e
b|n> is competence, follow-up in action, and know-how.
322
This means that the
concretization of Yahwehs power takes the form of applied thought operative in action. The impression
here is that Yahwehs power is worked out in the real world as accomplishment.

To put all of this together, Job 12:13 tells us that Yahwehs wisdom gives birth to carefully
thought out resolution, and that Yahwehs power generates operation in the form of action.

In terms of Daniel 2:2-23 Yahwehs wise resolve and His powerful competence imply that
Yahweh changes times and epochs, deposes kings and appoints them [2:21] in harmony with His wise
resolve and by means of His commanding know-how. It also means that the product of deliberation, of
Divine resolution, and of Divine follow-up in history is made available to those who appreciate and thirst
for Yahwehs thought and planning [2:21c-23].

The upshot of this praise to Yahwehs power and wisdom is this: There is astute design and
unstoppable purpose in the plans of Yahweh; the scope of this judicious determination is made clear in
Daniel 2:21 and it is made available to mortals in 2:21c-23. As Russell notes regarding the wisdom and
might of God, Nothing is hidden from His understanding and nothing is beyond His power to achieve.
323

Yahweh is the sovereign Lord and Master of human history, such that His power [kch] and might
rule over every nation on the earth and such that none of these political entities can even begin to resist
Yahweh [2 Chronicles 20:6]. As Sara Japhet observes on the theology of the Chronicles passage, a passage
that mirrors theologically Daniel 2:20c, The theological assumptions of this passage are that God alone
rules over the world, he alone determines the fortunes of every single nation, and no one can withstand
him.
324

319
Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic Books, 1985), 19.

320
William F. Albright and David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Bible, vol. 18A, Proverbs 1-9, by
Michael V. Fox (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 32.
321
Ibid., 38.

322
Ibid.

323
Russell, 45.

324
James Mays, Carol Newsom, and David Petersen, ed., The Old Testament Library, I & II
Chronicles by Sara Japhet (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993), 789.


[53]

At this point, Daniel turns to praise the wisdom and power of Yahweh by teasing out further
concretizations of His sovereign power in Daniel 2:21a-b.

In praise of what God does [2:21a-23d]

Daniel 2:21a He changes times and epochs is a sentence that is punctuated with a z~qf q~tn,
signaling a slight break in the reading of the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:21a opens with the subject of the line He followed by the participial verb
changes and then the twin objects of the verb times and epochs.
325

Syntax: the syntactical relationship of 2:21a to the preceding lines is shaped by the use of the
disjunctive waw on the subject He signaling an explanatory function for 2:21a.
326

Of particular syntactical import is the use of the participle changes. The participle in Biblical
Aramaic may indicate some activity that is typical and characteristic, some undertaking that is ongoing.
327

At the very least, this participle shows us that change is neither random, nor mechanical, nor in the hands
of men, including political power-players such as kings [2:21b], but rather Yahweh.

Another key point carried by the participle is the Haphel stem of the verb, which signals
causation, obviously on Yahwehs part.
328
To the extent that Yahweh governs the changes, the vicissitudes
in human history, to that extent Yahweh is the deciding factor in geopolitical history.
329

Both of the direct objects have a definite article on them, probably to signal a collective sense of
these abstract terms.
330
At the very least, what this tells us is that times and epochs taken as a whole are
within the aegis of God.

Lexical: of obvious interest in reading Daniel 2:21a is the sense of change, as well as times and
epochs.

The participle changes uses a verb [
e
n~] that may be translated to alter.
331
An Akkadian
cognate an| may be translated to become different.
332
The Hebrew cognate [nh] means to change,
to alter, or to be different.
333

325
The verb is ..~ [Haphel, participle, ms, sg]; the two direct objects are
times/.. [definite article, noun, ms, pl] and epochs/.. [definite article, noun, ms, pl].

326
For this use of the disjunctive waw, see Bauer-Leander 96 g.

327
For this use of the participle, see Rosenthal 177; Bauer-Leander 81 b.

328
For the causative nuance of the Haphel, see Rosenthal 99.

329
For this thought with elaboration, see Goldingay, 55-56.

330
Bauer-Leander 88 h.

331
BDB, 1116; Holladay, 423; KB
2
, 2000.

332
KB
2
, 1597.

333
KB
2
, 1598.


[54]

No one would deny that things change; circumstances vary; world conditions adjust or are
seemingly modified; states of affairs appear to rework themselves. Changes, adaptations, shifts, variations,
alterations are the stuff of time and tide. There are revisions in history as we watch. None of this is to be
denied. However, what we now know is that these changes, these alterations, these adjustments in the
course of human events all come from the same source: Yahweh. History, writes Abraham Heschel, is not
an arena where willful nations carry out their evil designs, but rather an area where Gods will comes to
expression.
334
As noted previously, and as should be obvious to any reader who weighs and considers the
book of Daniel as a whole, this is the theme of the book of Daniel: Yahwehs wisdom and power dominate
the changes, the variables, the fluctuations, the vagaries of life, including as we shall see human politics
[2:21b].

The vicissitudes are categorized as times and epochs. There seems to be a translation matter, since
some English versions translate times and seasons, while others opt for times and epochs.

To begin with, epochs [z
e
m~n] may refer to a fixed period of time or possibly a specifically fixed
time.
335
Initially, at least, the word is a time word and not so much a reference to the natural world as
seasons may seem to imply.

The Aramaic term [z
e
m~n] seems to have four basic uses: [1] It can mean a point in time,
especially when referring to a coincidence of events, as in Ezra 5:3;
336
[2] it can also refer to a
predetermined period of time, as in 2:16, where Daniel requests a period of time to determine the meaning
of the king's dream;
337
[3] more frequently, however, it refers to a predetermined moment or hour.
Daniel would kneel to pray for Jerusalem three specific times a day (6:10 [11], 6:13 [14]);
338
and [4]
z
e
m~n can refer to the specified timesi.e., the events of human life (birth, death, seasons, festivals) and
human history (the rise and fall of kingdoms)are predetermined by God (2:21), and attempts of human
monarchs to change the times are characteristic of hubris and offensive to God (7:25).
339

The net effect is that z
e
m~n points to some open-ended period of time that may be either unique or
more episodic in nature. Moreover, Daniel 2:21; 7:12, 22, and 25 disclose that z
e
m~n falls under the aegis
of Yahweh.

The opening term for time, !Tdd~n, is more straightforward in meaning. The term may be derived
from the Akkadian root adannu a noun that means an appointed time or a fixed time.
340
BDB affirms
that !Tdd~n implies a fixed, appointed, or definite duration of time, occasionally involving specific

334
Abraham Heschel, The Prophets, Two Volumes in One (Peabody: Prince Press, 2003), 174.

335
For the first nuance, see KB
2
, 1866r; for the second, see Holladay, 404r and BDB, 1091r.

336
Anthony Tomasino, z
e
m~n, in NIDOTTE.

337
Ibid.

338
Ibid.

339
Ibid.

340
BDB, 1105; KB
2
, 1944, concurs that may be derived from the Akkadian adannu, but
denies that the Aramaic term may be taken as a loanword from the Akkadian. The most we can claim is
that both are etymologically related.


[55]

conditions occurring within the durative time frame.
341
Holladay also affirms the durative nuance and
glosses !Tdd~n in 2:21a with (changing) times.
342

The Septuagint traditions gloss times and epochs with kairs and chrnos. The former term
simply suggests generally time or period of time; in the plural, kairs may signal the times or the state of
affairs.
343
The latter term, chrnos, references time in the abstract, or a definite time period.
344

The sum of the matter is this: both !Tdd~n/times a fixed and definite duration of time and
z
e
m~n/epochs an open-ended period of time evidence change alterations, adjustments, modifications,
shifts and variations due to the Sovereign authority of Yahweh over times and epochs. In a nutshell,
Yahweh is the final arbiter of events in human history, including political history, as we shall see presently.
For the moment, Russell neatly summarizes the point:
345

Men may imagine that times and seasons are fixed by the movements
of the heavenly bodies or else are in the hands of capricious celestial
powers that are believed to control mens destinies. But, this is not so.
Times and seasons are in Gods hands, and he changes them as he
wills.

We now turn to that part of this hymn of praise to the power of Yahweh that affirms His
sovereignty over the political affairs of mankind.

Daniel 2:21b deposing kings and appointing kings is an utterance that is punctuated with an àtnach,
indicating the major pause in the reading of the verse.

Grammar: Daniel 2:21b opens with a participial clause deposing kings and ends with another
participial clause and appointing kings.
346

Syntax: there are several matters of syntax that enrich our understanding of this crucial line. We
begin by considering the syntax of the two sentences involved in 2:21b deposing kings and appointing
kings. These two sentences are in antithesis to one another.
347

The nature of this antithesis seems to be total, that is, as far as rulers are concerned, there are only
two possibilities: Depose them or appoint them. The point of the antithesis would appear to be Yahwehs
complete sovereignty over the rise and fall of these political kingpins.

The syntax of the participles deposing appointing once more signals an ongoing, typical, or
characteristic activity of Yahweh.
348
On the surface, it would seem that political power-players claw or

341
BDB, 1105r.

342
Holladay, 415r.

343
LSJ, 860.

344
Ibid., 2008.

345
Russell, 45.

346
The first participial clause is --/kings [noun, ms, pl] ~~/deposing
[Haphel, participle, ms, sg]; and the second is --/kings ~/and appointing
[Haphel, participle, ms, sg].

347
Andersen, 181.


[56]

finagle their way to the top; ultimately, however, it is God who has the final say in the matter. It is God
who governs human politics.
349

Furthermore, this point is supported by the Haphel stem in which these two participles are
written. As we have already observed, the Haphel stem of the verbs deposing appointing
communicates causation, surely Divine causation in this case.
350
The chain of causative participles is
impressive: Yahweh brings about changes [2:21a]; Yahweh causes unseating and brings about assigning.
Russell summarizes:
351

Kings may vainly imagine that their power and rule are in their own
hands. But, this is not so. It is God and God alone who sets them up
and puts them down.

Lexical: of obvious lexical interest are the two action words deposing and appointing.

The Aramaic term translated depose [!~d~h] is fairly straightforward. It means to take away or
simply to remove.
352
The Septuagint traditions use the verb methPsthmi, which means when used in a
causal sense to place in another way, to remove or to banish.
353

Appearances can be deceiving. That is, it would appear that Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar, its
king, seem to have all the power on the human plane.
354
However, the reality is quite the opposite:
Nebuchadnezzar is where he is because God wants him there. As Muilenburg notes, Mans history
belongs to God, and man is responsible to God for the way he lives it.
355
Appearances aside, Yahweh
decides when and if a political power-player is banished.

The Aramaic verb translated appoint [q|m] is also clear-cut. The verb in the Haphel stem carries
with it the idea of founding or setting up or establishing leadership in its position of governance.
356
The
Septuagint translator goes with kathPsthmi, a verb that may be used causally in the sense of to set in order,
to ordain, to appoint, or to establish.
357

The reader will have observed that these two verbs deposing and appointing are lexical
opposites. Not only are these two verbs opposites, they are also reversives. That is to say, as far as ruling

348
See above on the participle changes and Rosenthal 177; Bauer-Leander 81 b.

349
For this thought, see Baldwin, 90.

350
For the causative nuance of the Haphel, see Rosenthal 99; Bauer-Leander 76 i.

351
Russell, 45.
352
KB
2
, 1944r; BDB, 1105r.

353
LSJ, 1090-91.

354
Longman, 79.

355
Muilenburg, 93.

356
See KB
2
, 1968-69; Holladay, 419; BDB, 1111r.

357
LSJ, 855.


[57]

goes, deposing and appointing depict rulers who are moving in opposite directions.
358
The key point,
lexically, is this: Political rule is a reversible state of affairs,
359
and Yahweh is in charge of the reversing.

Indeed, comparable to some of the word pairs in Ecclesiastes 3, this particular pair of opposites
cannot be chosen by those who experience them.
360
Political rule is inherently makeshift for the simple
reason that Yahweh reigns sovereign over the politics of man.

The sum of the matter is this: Daniel 2:21a affirms that Yahweh is Lord of human history
Yahweh orchestrates the ebb and flow in times and epochs; then, Daniel 2:21b affirms that Yahweh is Lord
of human politics deposing leaders and setting up political power-players. The political elite cannot
forestall their ousting any more than they appoint themselves of their own free will; rather Yahweh ushers
them in and Yahweh ushers them out. The upshot is that Yahweh is the sovereign Lord of human history,
and one of its subsets human geopolitics. Again, the reader is reminded that this theme is unpacked in
one way or another from this point forward to the very end of the book of Daniel.

Now, to the extent that the above is the case and that Yahweh is the Lord of human history, and
especially sovereign over the political elite, then one must approach understanding human history,
including the political maneuverings of man, with no small amount of intellectual humility. Hence, the
importance of this next unit, praising Yahweh for His willingness to impart wisdom into what He is doing
in history. As John Goldingay perceptively notes, apparently understanding history is a divine gift, not a
human achievement.
361

The reader, or the historian for that matter, should acknowledge two levels of intellectual humility.
The first is that wisdom resides with Yahweh [2:22b-c]; the second is that understanding what God is up to
in history is a gift of revelation [2:21c, 22a, 23b-d]. Both levels with the centerpiece of discerning
Yahwehs sovereignty over human history may be set out chiastically:

A Yahweh provides wisdom [2:21c-d, 22a]
B Yahweh is wisdom [2:22b-c] Centerpiece
A Yahweh provides wisdom [2:23a-d]

Yahweh provides wisdom [2:21c-d, 22a]

Daniel 2:21c He [Yahweh] provides wisdom to the wise may be set out with its parallel member:
Daniel 2:21d understanding to those who know discernment. The parallel members are
wisdom//understanding and to the wise//to those who know discernment.

Grammar: the grammar of Daniel 2:21c opens with the verbal component, a participle He
provides and is followed by the direct object of the participle wisdom and concludes with a
prepositional phrase depicting the recipient to the wise.
362
The grammar of Daniel 2:21d opens with the

358
See Bernard Comrie, et al, ed., Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics, Lexical Semantics by D.A.
Cruse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995; reprint), 226.

359
Ibid., 227.

360
On this point, see Michael V. Fox, A Time to Tear Down and A Time to Build Up (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 201-04.
361
Goldingay, 55.

362
The participle is >~ [Peal, participle, ms, sg]; the prepositional phrase is
-W- [preposition, noun, ms, pl].


[58]

direct object of the implied participle understanding and also concludes with the prepositional phrase
to those who know discernment.
363

Syntax: the participle that governs both lines [2:21c-d] again underscores an ongoing and more or
less typical activity on Yahwehs part. Providing wisdom and insight into His operations in history is
customary with Him.

The syntax of the two prepositional phrases is naturally governed by the use of l
e
, the preposition
in question. Rosenthal notes that this preposition is commonly used to express ownership.
364
In this case,
the sense would be that those to whom wisdom is given already possess some level of wisdom, and those to
whom understanding is given also know discernment. At the same time, it may be best to simply read l
e
as
pointing to the personal recipients of the act of providing; the recipients are the wise and those who know
discernment.
365
In this case, the recipients of the wisdom/understanding are prepared and therefore capable
of receiving what Yahweh offers.

Lexical: the first matter of lexical concern is the participle; then, we shall consider
wisdom//understanding and the wise//those who know discernment.

Yahweh provides glosses an Aramaic term [y
e
hab] that is normally translated to give by most of
the English versions. KoNhler-Baumgartner translate give,
366
as do the other major lexicons. At the same
time, when Daniel praises and thanks God for this provision [y
e
hab] of wisdom in 2:23, the prophet seems
to extol Yahweh for His graciousness in making the provision in the first place.

Wisdom//understanding uses two terms from the semantic field of terms for wisdom, knowledge
and skill.
367

Wisdom [chokm>] points to Gods wisdom;
368
that is, Yahwehs wisdom is unique to Him,
including deep and hidden things [2:22a] and what is in obscurity [2:22b]. Baldwin observes that Gods
wisdom is all-embracing, unlimited.
369
The net effect is that Yahweh provides some element of His own
wisdom, the Divine and unrestricted, high level of knowledge into His oversight of His universe.

Understanding [mand~!] suggests knowledge, probably in the sense of the power of actually
knowing.
370
There is an Akkadian cognate mandtu that underlines the result of recognition, or what

363
The direct object here is .. [conjunction, definite article, noun, ms, sg]; the
prepositional phrase is ~.>/discernment [noun, fm, sg] - [preposition, Peal, participle,
ms, pl].

364
Rosenthal 79; KB
2
, 1905.

365
KB
2
, 1905; BDB, 1098r; Holladay, 410.
366
KB
2
, 1889; BDB, 1095r; Holladay, 407.

367
See Wisdom, knowledge, skill in NIDOTTE.

368
KB
1
, 315.

369
Baldwin, 90.

370
BDB, 1095.


[59]

has become known, or simply understanding.
371
One Septuagint tradition uses synesis, a term that implies
comprehension or sagacity.
372
A second Septuagint tradition uses phronsis, a terms that indicates sense,
judgment, practical wisdom or prudence.
373
Taken together, the Septuagint also reads the Hebrew term in
the sense of the results of recognition. This emphasis on the results of recognition seems to undergird the
evaluation of Daniel by Belshazzar in Daniel 5:12. The net effect is that Yahweh provides comprehension,
actual awareness or discernment, grasp and perception of His operations in human history.

Wise//discernment both come from the semantic field of terms for knowledge, discernment,
shrewdness, and wisdom.

Wise [ch~kkTm] is akin to wisdom [chokm>] noted above. In this case, the wise/ ch~kkTm are
those who are who are wise learners in the school of Divine wisdom.
374
The Hebrew cognate [ch~k~m]
also refers to the pious and wise person who knows and observes Torah.
375
Holladay refers to the ch~k~m
as the God-fearing wise man who knows and keeps the law.
376

The Hebrew cognate [ch~k~m/wise] of the Aramaic term [ch~kkTm/wise] stresses this quality of
character that is God-fearing and attentive to Yahweh. The ch~k~m/wise is one who takes note of and
ponders the loyal love of Yahweh [Psalm 107:43]; the ch~k~m/wise is one who listens and increases in
learning [Proverbs 1:5]; the ch~k~m/wise is the kind of man who is instructed and becomes wiser yet
[Proverbs 9:9]; the ch~k~m/wise is the kind of God-fearer who stores up knowledge [Proverbs 10:14]; and,
the ch~k~m/wise is one who seeks knowledge [Proverbs 18:15]. The upshot is this: All of these Hebrew
cognates of the Aramaic term [ch~k~m/wise] imply that the ch~kkTm/wise are those who pursue a lifestyle
of God-fearing attention to the will of God; they are in the habit of listening, of increasing in learning, of
openness to instruction, of seeking and storing up knowledge. The net effect is that the ch~kkTm/wise are
those who have proven themselves to be God-fearers whose character seeks and absorbs Divine wisdom.

Discernment [bTn~h] is written as a participial clause those who know [y~d! / participle]
discernment [bTn~h]. The first order of business is to consider this collocation.

This is the only occurrence of this precise collocation in the Aramaic section of the Hebrew Bible.
The collocation is used in the Hebrew Bible twice to communicate one who has understanding [1
Chronicles 12:33; 2 Chronicles 2:12]. KoNhler-Baumgartner translate the collocation with know
discernment.
377
BDB follows suit.
378

The syntax of the participle comes into play, indicating a continuous and habitual action.
379
To
make a long story short, this ongoing inclination for knowing, when used with this direct object
discernment has the net effect of communicating one who has discernment.

371
KB
2
, 1920.

372
LSJ, 1712.

373
Ibid., 1956.

374
BDB, 315.

375
KB
1
, 314.

376
Holladay, 104.
377
KB
2
, 1888.

378
BDB, 1095.

379
Rosenthal 177.

[60]

The noun glossed discernment [bTn~h] is used only here in the Aramaic section of the Hebrew
Bible. The Aramaic term [bTn~h] is glossed understanding,
380
discernment,
381
or insight.
382
The Hebrew
cognate [bTn~h] denotes [1] the faculty [emphasis mine] of intellectual discernment and interpretation,
[2] the exercise of that faculty [emphasis mine] and [3] the product thereof.
383
The upshot is that
bTn~h/discernment shows itself in the ability to comprehend meanings and perceive relations and
causes.
384
As far as the book of Daniel is concerned, bTn~h/discernment refers to a special kind of
knowledge, namely, the interpretation of esoteric messages.
385
The net effect is that in the book of Daniel
bTn~h/discernment is the product of the exercise of the faculty of intellectual discernment.

Now, lets take a moment to summarize the lexical information and then turn to the poetics of
Daniel 2:21c-d.

Wisdom to the wise amounts to [1] Divine insight into Yahwehs hand in human history provided
to [2] God-fearing persons who seek out and absorb Divine wisdom. The wisdom provided consists in
Gods own wisdom, Yahwehs unique access to deep and hidden things and His exclusive right of entry
into what is in obscurity. The persons who are provided this high level of all-embracing insight into
Yahwehs oversight of the politics of man are those whose personal character is marked by attentiveness,
by listening and pondering, by openness to Divine instruction, and by God-fearing attention to the wisdom
and will of Yahweh.

Understanding to those who have discernment signals [1] grasp of truth, truly knowing, definitive
awareness and cognition of Yahwehs operations in the political sphere of mankind provided to [2] those
who exercise the faculty of discernment and receive in this case the fruit thereof. The understanding that is
provided is what has actually become known to the discerning. Yahweh provides understanding in the
sense of comprehension, alertness, and real time awareness regarding Yahwehs hand in history. The
persons to whom this certitude is provided are those who hunger and thirst for it; they are those who [1]
actually put their ability to discern to work and, with what Yahweh provides, actually produce the fruit of
intellectual discernment concerning the Divine agenda in human history.

Finally, the reader should come to terms with the parallelism implicit in Daniel 2:21c-d. To be
sure, Yahweh provides, graciously and lavishly:

Wisdom to the wise [2:21c]
Understanding to those who have discernment [2:21d]

The question is: What is the relationship between the A-line [wisdom to the wise] and the B-line
[understanding to those who have discernment]? In cases of semantic parallelism, the basic relationship is

380
BDB, 1084r.

381
KB
2
, 1833r.

382
Bauer-Leander 180 k [Einsicht]; Holladay, 399.

383
Fox, Proverbs, 30.

384
Ibid.

385
Ibid.

[61]

that of focusing, specification or concretization of the A-line in the B-line.
386
To make a long story short,
the B-line makes the A-line a more specific instance of wisdom to the wise.

The thrust of the parallelism signals that the Divine wisdom [chokm>] in the A-line is concretized
in the B-line in the form of truly knowing [mand~!] on the part of the discerning. The emphasis in this
parallelism is on the wisdom // understanding parallelism.
387
The upshot of this parallelism is this: God
... is pleased to make known to the wise among his people his own divine wisdom and the knowledge of
what is hidden from mortal man.
388

The claims here are simply stunning. Since Yahweh is, in fact, sovereign over human history,
especially geopolitical history, it is Yahweh who is in the unique position to provide wisdom and
understanding into the ebb and flow of His Lordship of history. Furthermore, as John Goldingay writes
concerning Yahwehs Lordship of history:
389

The wisdom being referred to here is not the quality of being wise but
the possessing of knowledge (about history) that stems from being the
deciding factor (in history) and issues in being alone able to grant
knowledge (about history).

There is one final issue that the reader must appreciate about Daniel 2:21c-d, that is, the implicit
antithesis between this wisdom/understanding to the wise/discerning and the cadre of advisors that
surround Nebuchadnezzar. As we shall see, where these political trend spotters fail, Daniel succeeds.

Specifically, the recipients of this Divine insight the wise // the discerning are countered by the
wise among the cadre of seers and readers and gurus attending Nebuchadnezzar. In Daniel 2:27, the
ch~kkTm/wise of Babylon are the mediums, diviner-priests and the astrologers [see also Daniel 5:7]. This
tension between Daniel as a God-fearing and wise servant of Yahweh and the advisors of Nebuchadnezzar
who consult the pantheon of gods is marked and intentional. Indeed, the pretentions of human magic, of
human power, and even of human wisdom, are exposed.
390

Daniel 2:22a He [Yahweh] reveals deep and hidden things is a sentence that is punctuated with an
àtnach, signaling the major pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:22a opens with the subject of the verb He [Yahweh] continues with the
participial verb reveals and the two direct objects deep and hidden things.
391

Syntax: the syntactical function of the personal pronoun He is to back reference the same
player found in Daniel 2:21 He [Yahweh] changes times and epochs. The net effect is that He who
changes is also He who reveals. Put another way, we may understand the changes only by virtue of the
revelation.

386
Alter, 19.

387
Ibid.

388
Russell, 46.

389
Goldingay, 56.
390
Ibid.

391
The verbal participle is .-- [Peal, participle, ms, sg]; the two direct objects are:
./hidden things [definite article, Pael, passive participle, ms, pl] and ./deep
things [adjective, fm, pl].


[62]

As we have noted repeatedly in this section, the syntactical function of the participle is to
underscore ongoing, typical and characteristic activity of Yahweh, this time in revealing.

Lexical: the sense of the principle verb reveals indicates that Yahweh uncovers
392
or
discloses
393
what is deep and hidden. The Septuagint traditions use either anakalupt or apokalupt. The
sense of the first term [anakalupt] is to uncover, to remove a covering or to simply unveil something.
394

The second term [apokalupt] is similar, indicating to uncover, to disclose, to reveal, to make known or to
unmask.
395
Either way, when Daniel affirms that Yahweh reveals something, the sense is that Yahweh
removes the covering from what is humanly enigmatic and indecipherable.

In this case, the repetition of the personal pronoun He may come into play here. That is,
Yahwehs changing times and epochs, His deposing leaders and appointing them, are matters that are deep,
unfathomable and hidden to the mortal mind; until He removes the veil, as He does in the book of Daniel.
The upshot is this: To the extent that human history moves by the sovereign management of Yahweh,
precisely to that extent is His supervision of history completely veiled to modern man; understanding of
what God is up to in this world requires revelation.

For this reason, Gods administration of human history changing times and epochs, deposing
leaders and appointing them is characterized, from the human point of view as deep [!~mTq] and hidden
[m
e
s>ttr~t]. Indeed, it is!

The adjective deep [things] glosses a term that means ideas or circumstances that are humanly
unfathomable [!~mTq];
396
Holladay goes with impenetrable things.
397
The Hebrew cognates shed light on
the sense of !~mTq/deep things. An adjectival cognate [!~mq] is used by Zophar in Job to affirm that
Gods depths and limits are deeper than Sheol [Job 11:8]. Job seems to concur, noting that God reveals the
mysteries hidden/ unsearchable in darkness [Job 12:22]. Qoheleth reflects on what exists and says that it is
all beyond reach and consequently very deep [Ecclesiastes 7:24]. The upshot is this: Human history is
humanly impenetrable; there are obscurities, even in human geopolitics, that are simply unfathomable,
indecipherable, hidden from human reason and human analysis. To the extent that these !~mTq/deep things
are decipherable at all requires revelation.

The participle hidden things is a verb that basically points to what is covered, veiled or
mysterious [m
e
s>ttr~t].
398
The verb carries a connotation of mystery in Job 34:29, where Yahweh, who
often remains hidden in mystery, nevertheless remains sovereign over mankind. The Septuagint translators
seem to have had problems finding a suitable translation for m
e
s>ttr~t. One tradition uses anakruphos, a
terms that means hidden or concealed, or obscure and hard to understand.
399
A different translator opts for

392
BDB, 1086r.

393
Holladay, 401r.

394
LSJ, 107.

395
Ibid., 201.
396
KB
2
, 1951r.

397
Holladay, 417r.

398
See BDB, 1104r; Holladay, 415.

399
LSJ, 204.


[63]

skoteinos, referring to what is dark, obscure, or shadowy.
400
The net effect is this: Human history is littered
with mysteries, with shadowy darkness, with events and players that are simply enigmatic and utterly
cryptic from the human observers point of view. Again, if these m
e
s>ttr~t/hidden things are to be
understood at all, they require Divine revelation to untangle the knots.

The sum of the matter is this: We are told by Daniel that Yahweh provides wisdom [2:21c-d, 22a].
And wisdom is what is sorely required.

We have been told that Yahweh changes times and epochs; that God alters and adjusts and
modifies the ebb and flow of human history, including geopolitical history. Fair enough; we are also told
that Yahweh deposes kings and appoints them. We accept as an axiom that Yahweh has the final say in
human geopolitical history.

Yes, now, but just here is where matters become deep in the sense of obscure and impenetrable
and hidden in the sense of sheer mystery. Look at some of these political-military power-players in the
book of Daniel and marvel: Nebuchadnezzar [of the fiery furnace fame], Belshazzar, or Darius the Mede
[prone to throw miscreants to the lions]. Look at subsequent political power-players: Antiochus Epiphanes,
Nero, Domitian, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, the Kims in North Korea. If it is true, and it surely is, that Yahweh
deposes these kinds of leaders and even appoints them, then wisdom is sorely required to see the point in
all of this. However, as the reader proceeds through the book of Daniel, the patterns in history will be
clear, especially in Daniel 7-9, and the believers response to all of this is also clearly revealed in Daniel
10-12, and Yahwehs mastery of it all stands out in clear relief.

Yahweh is wisdom [2:22b-c]

We have noted that Daniel 2:22b-c is the centerpiece of the chiasm from 2:21c-23d. The fact that
Yahweh graciously and extravagantly provides wisdom is founded upon the fact that Yahweh is wisdom
[2:22b-c]. Yahweh possesses absolute mastery of the unknown [2:22b] as well as unrestricted omniscience
[2:22c].

Daniel 2:22b He [Yahweh] knows what is in obscurity is a sentence that is punctuated with a z~qf

Grammar: the grammar of Daniel 2:22b opens with a participle as principle verb He knows
followed by a pronoun what and then a prepositional phrase in the darkness.
401

Syntax: the sentence is parallel to 2:22a, probably offering the reader the basis for Yahwehs
unhindered capacity to reveal deep and hidden things [2:22a].
402

Once more, the participle does its aspectual work knows of communicating a trait that is
typical and customary with Yahweh: He knows.

Lexical: the prophet affirms that Yahweh knows [y
e
da!] what is obscure to the human observer.
The lexicons gloss y
e
da! with know or understand.
403
The Hebrew cognate [y~d!] suggests the kind of

400
Ibid., 1615.
401
The verb in the line is /He knows [Peal, participle, ms, sg]; the prepositional phrase is
.-=W>/in the darkness [preposition, definite article, noun, ms, sg].

402
On this point, see James Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1998;
paperback), 53.

403
KB
2
, 1888; BDB, 1095; Holladay, 407.


[64]

knowledge that is closely familiar with some circumstance or entity. The Hebrew term [y~d!] may be
glossed to perceive, to take note of, to know by experience, to discriminate or to recognize.
404
Even more to
the point, KoNhler-Baumgartner note that y~d! may mean to understand something.
405
The upshot is that
with Yahweh and Yahweh alone, we trust in One who is quite familiar with, who understands, what is
simply incomprehensible to the human observer.

Obscurity [ch
a
k] is a noun that normally is translated darkness. This is the only appearance of
the noun in the book of Daniel. In and of itself, ch
a
k/obscurity means darkness.
406
The Hebrew
cognate [chek] is very familiar to the reader of the Old Testament.

The figurative use of chek/darkness/obscurity implies what is hidden, unknowable, or
secret.
407
The noun is used as a figure of blindness [Psalm 42:7; 49:9], a figure of perplexity [Job 12:25], a
figure of confusion [Psalm 35:6], a figure of ignorance [Job 37:19], and a figure of obscurity [Ecclesiastes
6:4].
408

Naturally, these figurative uses portray the human condition, not Yahwehs. A fair amount of
what confronts Daniel in the book of Daniel is, from his human perspective, mystifying, bewildering, and
murky. Daniels recourse to Yahweh in prayer and petition over this matter [2:17-19] attests to his own
blindness and ignorance concerning Nebuchadnezzars dream experience. However, Daniel pleads with
Yahweh for the simple reason that Yahweh understands what is unintelligible to Daniel; Yahweh is
thoroughly familiar with what befuddles mortal men like Daniel.

Daniel 2:22c for, light dwells with Him is the final sentence in Daniel 2:22.

Grammar: Daniel 2:22c opens with the subject of the main verb light followed by a
prepositional phrase with Him and then the participial verb dwells.
409

Syntax: the front-loading of the subject light surely conveys the focus of the utterance,
410
as
well as, more specifically, underscoring the nature or quality of what dwells with Yahweh.
411
The writer
juxtaposes the dark/light contrast in order to underline the darkness/obscurity in which mankind attempts to
make sense of the world about him/her and the perfect light in which Yahweh operates as He manages His
universe.

The syntax of the conjunctive waw probably indicates that Daniel 2:22c is an explanation of the
claim in Daniel 2:22b He [Yahweh] knows what is in obscurity, for [that is to say] light dwells with Him.
412

404
BDB, 393-94.

405
KB
1
, 391.

406
KB
2
, 1881r; BDB, 1094r; Holladay, 406r.

407
KB
1
, 362.

408
For this laundry list, see BDB, 365.
409
The subject is .~./light [conjunction, definite article, noun, ms, sg]; the participle
is ./dwells [Peal, passive participle, ms, sg].

410
See Van der Merwe 47.2.(i).

411
Ibid., 47.3.

412
For the use of the conjunction, waw, to indicate an explanation, see Bauer-Leander 70 r.

[65]

The familiar participle dwells once more signals durative, ongoing, typical characteristic of
Yahweh.

Lexical: the term glossed light [n
e
hTr] is from a semantic field of terms for light, radiance and
brightness.
413
This is obviously in glaring contrast to the darkness/obscurity/blindness/perplexity and
confusion that characterize the diagnostic and explanatory capabilities of mankind [Daniel 2:22b].

The lexicons gloss n
e
hTr/light with brilliance,
414
or simply light.
415
There is feminine noun from
the same family [n>hTr] that means illumination or insight.
416
There are some interesting Ancient Near
Eastern cognates for n
e
hTr/light. For example, in Jewish Aramaic, the root is an allegorical name for the
Messiah; moreover, in Samaritan, the root means that which gives light.
417
This is the only occurrence of
n
e
hTr/light in the Aramaic Old Testament. The net effect is that when men attempt to diagnose and explain
human history, there is darkness, with Yahweh enlightenment; with men is analytical obscurity, with
Yahweh is illumination; with men is investigative blindness, with Yahweh is insight; with men is
exploratory perplexity, with Yahweh is explanation; and with mankind is empirical confusion, with
Yahweh is knowledge.

The reader of Daniel should appreciate the tension that is set up here between the sheer ignorance
and explanatory blindness of the advisors of Nebuchadnezzar and the prayerful insight lavished on Daniel
by Yahweh. The trend spotters, the savvy analysts, the political gurus, of Nebuchadnezzars day and our
own for that matter, routinely run headlong into circumstances that defy human wisdom. This failure in
human fact-finding should invite Yahweh into the conversation.

Dwells [sh
e
r~] translates a term that implies to settle down
418
or to stay/remain.
419
Rosenthal
goes with resides;
420
BDB opts for abides.
421
One of the Septuagint traditions uses katalusis resting
place, lodging to depict dwelling. Montgomery notes that sh
e
r~ means that light is at home with
Yahweh.
422

The sum of the matter is this: Yahweh provides wisdom [2:21c-d, 22a, 23a-b] precisely because
Yahweh is wisdom [2:22b-c]. Recall the chiasm that structures this praise of Yahwehs wisdom:

A Yahweh provides wisdom [2:21c-d, 22a]
B Yahweh is wisdom [2:22b-c] Centerpiece

413
See Light, radiance, brightness, in NIDOTTE.

414
Rosenthal, 91.

415
KB
2
, 1927r; BDB, 1102.

416
KB
2
, 1927.

417
Ibid.
418
KB
2
, 2002r.

419
Bauer-Leander 82 b.

420
Rosenthal, 99.

421
BDB, 1117r.

422
Montgomery, 161.


[66]

A Yahweh provides wisdom [2:23a-b]

The stress in the passage [2:21c-23b] is on Yahweh, the Giver of wisdom that resides uniquely
with Him. Yahweh provides His own wisdom [2:21c], the wisdom that is exclusive to Him, including
insight into what is hidden and obscure to human analysts [2:22a-b]. This Divine wisdom shares in the all-
embracing and comprehensive insight into the ebb and flow of human history.

Furthermore, Yahweh provides understanding [2:21d]. Yahweh grants the power of actually
knowing; Yahweh provides comprehension and sagacity, actual awareness into His operations in human
history. Indeed, the book of Daniel provides invaluable insight into the patterns in human geopolitical
history from the viewpoint of the heavenly sovereign.

Finally, Yahweh reveals deep and hidden things [2:22a]. The Giver of wisdom uncovers,
discloses, unveils what is hidden from human reflection, human analysis, from human interpretation. The
Giver of wisdom removes the coverings that veil what is enigmatic and indecipherable to human analysts.

Now, the truth that undergirds these various provisions and revelations [2:21c-22a] is their source:
Yahweh is, in fact and in truth, wisdom [2:22b-c]. Yahweh alone possesses absolute mastery of the
humanly mystifying [2:22b] as well as possessing unrestricted omniscience [2:22c].

Yahweh is not befuddled by darkness, rather He is intimately familiar with things that, from the
human perspective, are simply obscure [2:22b]. Accordingly, Daniel pleads with Yahweh to make
intelligible what is simply bewildering to him, and Yahweh responds and gives.

In the final analysis, light permanently resides with Yahweh [2:22c]. That which provides
illumination into the comings and goings of political times, epochs and political leaders resides with God.
Daniel 2:22c implies that Yahweh is the Giver of the kind of light that resides with Him and Him alone.
The upshot is that Daniel is permitted to stand in the secret council of God His heavenly Parliament as it
were and is allowed to see for himself deep and mysterious things that are hidden from those
uninitiated in the ways of the true God.
423

Yahweh provides wisdom [2:23a-d]

Daniel 2:23a To You, the God of my fathers, I [give] thanks and praise is an utterance that has
three punctuation marks. The first, a l
e
garmh, comes after To You, dividing 2:23a at this point. The
second punctuation mark, a r
e
bT
a
! , comes after the God of my fathers, and signals a slight pause in the
reading of the line. The final mark, a z~qf q~tn, again indicates a slight pause in the reading of the line.
If nothing else, this punctuation suggests that this line was read carefully and deliberately by the Masoretes
who punctuated the text.

Grammar: Daniel 2:23a opens with a prepositional phrase to You followed by a genitive
construction the God of my fathers followed by the predicate of the noun clause thanks and praise
with the subject I [give].
424
The reader will note that the translation of 2:23a is not quite literal; literally,
the translation could read: To You, the God of my fathers, thanks and praise I [give]. The translation is
smoothed out for the English reader. However, the way the line is written is quite suggestive: It begins

423
Russell, 46; Professor Russells observation is helpful in orienting the reader of Daniel to the
book as a whole. That is, we have proposed that Daniel 2:21a-b is the theme of the book as a whole. This
means that rather than reading Daniel for signposts pointing to the End, one might read Daniel and discover
initiation into the ways of God in the human history. This appreciation of His ways could well focus on
how Daniel teases out Yahweh changing times and epochs and removing some leaders and appointing
others.
424
The genitive is ~>./my fathers [noun, ms, pl, construct with a 1
st
, cs, suffix]
~-./the God of [noun, ms, sg, construct]; the predicate nominatives are W>/and praise
[conjunction, Pael, participle, ms, sg] .=~/thanks [Haphel, participle, ms, sg].


[67]

with God, moves on to the ancestry of Daniel, advances to worship, and then concludes with I. Daniel
knows what should be first and what should be last.

Lexical: of lexical import is the collocation God of my fathers. The important point
theologically is the covenant implications associated with God of my fathers elsewhere in the Old
Testament [Genesis 31:42; 32:10; Exodus 15:2; 18:4]. In the two Genesis passages, the phrase God of my
father is directly linked to the covenant with Abraham. In Exodus 15:2, in the victory hymn of Moses,
the covenantal faithfulness of Yahweh to His people in delivering them is extolled, using the God of my
father language. The usage of the God of my father by Moses in Exodus 18:4 also recalls the faithfulness
of Yahweh during the wilderness wanderings and the exodus from Egypt. At least in these passages, the
collocation the God of my fathers has covenant associations, especially Yahwehs faithfulness to His
covenant promises to Abraham.
425
The upshot is that Daniel is fully aware of the gracious covenant
promises made by Yahweh, promises that Yahweh will stand by and ultimately fulfill. Daniels faith in the
God of my fathers is faith in the assurances that Yahweh made, once and for all, to His covenant people.

Later, Daniel will again make covenant associations in praise of Yahweh. In Daniel 9:4, the
prophet prays and confesses to the God who keeps His gracious covenant. In contrast to the waywardness
of Daniels fellow Israelites, Yahweh is loyal and faithful to His side of the gracious covenant promises.

For the most part, however, when Daniel mentions the covenant [b
e
rTt] explicitly, he does so in a
context of opposition to the Holy Covenant of Yahweh by those hell-bent on stamping it out [Daniel 11:22,
28, 30, 32]. This opposition motif brings us back to Daniel 2. That is, as Slotki points out, part of the
function of God of my fathers in Daniel 2:23a is to focus on the antithesis between the covenant
faithfulness of Yahweh and the gods of the polytheistic advisors of Nebuchadnezzar, by highlighting the
contrast to the false gods of the Chaldeans.
426
The covenant opposition motif, merely hinted at in Daniel
2:23 will take on far more prominence in Daniel 11. The net effect is that the book of Daniel depicts the
confrontations and oppositions that will occur throughout history as Yahweh brings the Messianic covenant
into full force [Daniel 9:24-26; 11:29-35].

Praise and thanks are worship language. The participle translated praise [m
e
hd!] has Ancient
Near Eastern cognates that imply that to praise is to confess or respect.
427
The Hebrew cognate [y~d>] is
an acknowledgement term, which is used in this sentence to acknowledge/praise Yahweh for the resolution
of a crisis.
428
As Westermann notes, this praise [y~d>] is a reaction to a beneficial, liberating act of
God.
429
The Psalter is replete with this kind of praise/acknowledgement [Psalm 9:1; 18:49; 28:7; 35:18;
42:5].

The Septuagint tradition uses the verb exomologe, which means to make grateful
acknowledgements.
430

425
See also Deuteronomy 1:11, 21; 6:3; 12:1; 27:3.

426
Slotki, 13.
427
KB
2
, 1888.

428
See Leslie Allen, y~d>, in NIDOTTE; for the use of this Hebrew root to express
praise/acknowledgement of the resolution of some crisis, see 2 Samuel 22:50; 1 Chronicles 29:13.

429
Claus Westermann, y~d>, in TLOT
2
, 506.

430
LSJ, 597.

[68]

In the case of Daniel 2:23a, Daniel acknowledges/praises Yahweh for all intents and purposes
delivering him and his comrades from a death sentence by providing him wisdom and power [2:23b].

Thanks glosses a participle [m
e
abach] that means to laud,
431
or simply to give thanks for
something.
432
Allen notes that the Hebrew cognate means to commend, praise, glorify or honor.
433

The Septuagint tradition uses ain0, a verb that means to praise, approve, or glorify.
434

In the case of Daniel 2:23a, Daniel extols, glorifies and honors Yahweh for His deliverance and
provision of wisdom and power [2:23b].

Daniel 2:23b for, wisdom and power you have given me is a sentence that is punctuated with an
àtnach, signaling the major break in the reading of the line.

Grammar: the sentence opens with the subordinating conjunction for and then front-loads the
two direct object terms wisdom and power followed by the finite verb You have given and then the
indirect object to me.
435

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:23b is to explain what lies behind the praise and
worship of Yahweh. At least, explanation is the preference of Bauer-Leander.
436
At the same time, this
subordinating conjunction can also supply the reason for some course of action.
437
The distinction is a fine
one, but having reasons for praise of God fits the context here.
The syntax of the two front-loaded object terms wisdom and power functions to reactivate
what is characteristic of Yahweh [Daniel 2:20c] and which is now characteristic of Daniel.
438
This front-
loading underlines the fact that Yahweh does not hoard His wisdom and power, but rather graciously and
lavishly supplies it to those who ask. On this point in the New Testament, take note of James 1:5.

Moreover, the front-loading of wisdom and power place Yahweh in complete contrast to the
polytheism of Daniels fellow advisors who fail to deliver, noting that their gods are not available to mortal
flesh [Daniel 2:11].

Another syntactical-semantic point concerns the perfect aspect verb have given. The perfect
aspect certainly points to a completed action.
439
At the same time, the perfect aspect of the verb may signal

431
BDB, 1114; Holladay, 422.

432
KB
2
, 1988-89.

433
Leslie Allen, ~bach, in NIDOTTE.

434
LSJ, 39.

435
Wisdom and power are the same terms used of Yahweh in Daniel 2:20c; see the notes there; the
finite verb is >~ [Peal, perfect, 2
nd
, ms].

436
Bauer-Leander 70.4 r.

437
Ibid., 70.4 g.
438
For front-loading used to reactivate a previous entity, see Van der Merwe 47.2(ii).

439
Rosenthal 98.


[69]

a resultative perfect,
440
where the sense of the perfect verb may imply the successful completion of the
Divine initiative in answering.
441
If this nuance is allowed in the reading of the line, then the emphasis on
what Yahweh can bring to completion existing results once more places Yahweh in stark contrast to the
gods mentioned by the kings advisors in Daniel 2:11.

Lexical: the finite verb have given is also used of Yahweh in Daniel 2:21. There, it is noted
that Yahweh gives wisdom to the wise. At that time, we noted that the verb [y
e
hab] may be read in the
sense of to provide, with implications of providing lavishly as an act of grace. The Septuagint tradition
uses the Greek verb dPdmi, which may be read in the sense of to give freely, to grant, to provide well
for.
442

Once more, we have a reactivation, this time of the provision motif. In Daniel 2:21c, the
participial form of the verb denotes that Yahweh typically provides; in Daniel 2:23b, the perfect aspect of
provide signifies that Yahweh has effectively provided for Daniel.

Daniel 2:23c even now, You have made known to me what we asked of You is a sentence that is
punctuated with a z~qf q~tn, signaling a slight break in the reading of the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:23c opens with a temporal adverb even now followed by the principle
verb you have made known to me and concludes with a relative clause what we asked of You.
443

Syntax: the syntax of Daniel 2:23c is influenced by the temporal adverb [k
e
!an]. The syntactical
function of the temporal adverb is to underline the immediacy, the here-and-now-ness of the Divine
response to the prayers of Daniel and friends.
444

The syntactical-semantic import of the Haphel stem You have made known is causative;
Yahweh is acknowledged as being directly responsible for the communication.
445

The syntactical-semantic thrust of the perfect aspect verb mirrors the perfect of have given in
2:23b; that is, the perfect aspect You have made known also conveys a resultative perfect, implying the
full and successful completion of Yahwehs communication with Daniel.
446

440
Bauer-Leander 79 c.

441
For this sense of the resultative nuance of perfective aspect, see Comrie, 20.

442
LSJ, 422.

443
The principle verb is .=~ [Haphel, perfect, 2
nd
, ms, with a 1
st
, cs, suffix]; the
relative clause is . [preposition with a 2
nd
, ms, suffix] ..> [Peal, perfect, 1, c,
pl] [relative marker.

444
For this use of the temporal adverb, see KB
2
, 1901; Rosenthal 89; Bauer-Leander 68 u.

445
See Miles Van Pelt, Basics of Biblical Aramaic (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 143.
446
Bauer-Leander 79 c. This may be as good a place as any to ask: Does Yahweh still make this
kind of knowledge available in the same way? Two answers are typically offered: [1] Yes, He does, and [2]
No, He does not, preferring to speak through the aegis of His completed Biblical revelation.
Two factors in Daniel 2 should be kept in mind. First, when God speaks to a pagan king through a
vision or dream, the communication is of no direct use to him. The vision requires explanation. Second,
Daniel himself tells us that Yahweh grants wisdom to those who have already attained a certain level of
Divine wisdom in life [2:21c]. The upshot seems to be that for this kind of direct communication to be
effective there needs to be some background, some level of spiritual depth. This point is supported by the
list of recipients of direct revelation from God in the Old Testament Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Amos, and
Micah and in the New Testament Paul and John. As Daniel puts it Yahweh gives wisdom to the wise.

[70]

Lexical: of interesting lexical note is Daniels remark that Yahweh had disclosed what we asked
of You.

The verb glossed asked [b
e
!~h] has an interesting Akkadian cognate [bu|m] that refers to one
who searches or examines.
447
The Hebrew cognate [b~!ah] is used rarely, but signifies a seeker who
searches out some matter of concern.
448
The Aramaic term used here [b
e
!~h] is glossed to seek or to
request;
449
BDB opts for to seek or to ask;
450
and Rosenthal covers the waterfront with to search, to seek, to
ask, to pray.
451
Later, in Daniel 6:12, this verb [b
e
!~h] is used in parallel with ch~nan, verb that means to
seek mercy or to implore.
452

The net effect is that this asking is just that; these men did not make demands of Yahweh, nor did
they lecture Him via prayer. They sought, beseeched, pled, entreated and very diligently sought out an
answer from Yahweh. There seems to be both a sense of urgency as well as trust.

Daniel 2:23d for, the situation concerning the king You have made known is the final utterance in
Daniel 2:23 and also concludes the hymn of praise.

Grammar: Daniel 2:23d opens with the relative marker for followed by the direct object of
the verb the situation concerning the king and concluding with the main verb You have made
known.
453

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:23d is to provide an explanation of 2:23c; that is,
what we requested of You is explained in terms of the situation concerning the king.
454

Accordingly, one who claims to hear directly from God and I am not prepared to deny the
possibility in the abstract such a person, if Biblical history has any bearing, should be of the caliber of a
Daniel or Isaiah or Ezekiel or Paul or John. In other words, the recipients of such direct revelation have a
demonstrated history of ongoing learning and searching the Scriptures for Divine truth. They have paid
their dues and laid the groundwork.
At the same time, the reader is entitled to be skeptical of some, but by no means all, so-called
direct messages from God. In our current spiritual climate in 2013, when the Lord lays a message on the
heart, one has the nagging suspicion that such a message is a substitute for the hard work involved in
searching the Scriptures over time. Beyond failing to search the Scriptures, one also has the niggling
misgiving that more often than not such direct revelation is placed in the service of some self-serving
agenda.
Finally, in no case should the reader accept a so-called direct disclosure from God that clearly
collides with the revelation from God in Scripture. The reader is responsible for evaluating truth claims via
his or her detailed knowledge of the Old and New Testaments. Charlatans are very adept a draping half-
baked ideas in the garment of direct and Divine communication from God.

447
KB
2
, 1836.

448
KB
1
, 141.

449
KB
2
, 1836r.

450
BDB, 1085r.

451
Rosenthal, 80.

452
Holladay, 406.
453
The direct object of the main verb is .--/the king [definite article, noun, ms, sg]
-/situation concerning [noun, fm, sg, construct]; the finite verb is ..=~/You have made
known [Haphel, perfect, 2
nd
, ms, with a 1, cpl, suffix].


[71]

The genitive the situation concerning the king is probably signaling association; thus, the
translation concerning is suggested.
455

Thus ends the hymn of praise to Yahweh who is in Himself the repository of Wisdom and Power.
Moreover, Yahweh does not hoard His Wisdom nor does He remain elusive and secretive. Rather, Yahweh
graciously and lavishly provides wisdom to those who seek it diligently.

It now remains for Daniel to convince the powers that be that he has the required information for
the king.

Daniel 2:24a Because of this, Daniel went to Arioch is the opening sentence in the approach to the
ruling powers; the sentence is punctuated with a z~qf q~tn, indicating a brief pause in the reading of the
line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:24a opens with the subordinating conjunction because of this followed by
the subject of the sentence Daniel and then the main verb went and ending with a prepositional
phrase to Arioch.
456

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:24a is to identify the basis for Daniels approach to
Arioch, the chief executioner.
457

Daniel 2:24b whom the king had appointed to execute the wise men of Babylon is an utterance that
is punctuated with an àtnach, pointing out the major pause in the reading of the sentence.

Grammar: Daniel 2:24b opens with a relative marker whom followed by the main verb in the
sentence appointed with the subject of the main verb the king and then concluded with an infinitive
clause to execute the wise men of Babylon.
458

Syntax: The syntactical function of the relative clause is to remind the reader of the depth of the
problem. The relative clause lifts out the impending doom under which Daniel and friends still stand in the
person of the chief executioner.

Lexical: of some lexical interest to the reader is the verb appointed [m
e
n~h]. Indeed, the use of
this verb in the Aramaic section of Daniel is very telling.

To begin with, m
e
n~h may be translated to install or to appoint.
459
Moreover, A.R. Diamond
points out that the distinctive semantic element in m
e
n~h lies in its reference to a commanding will
[emphasis mine] making disposition of people, things, or circumstances.
460

454
For this use of the relative marker [], see Bauer-Leander 70 r.

455
Bauer-Leander 89 a.

456
The conjunction is ->--/because; the main verb is -/went [Peal, perfect, 3
rd
,
ms].

457
For the causative sense of this conjunction, see Bauer-Leander 70 h; Rosenthal 86.

458
The main verb is ./appointed [Pael, perfect, 3
rd
, ms]; the infinitive clause is
->>/Babylon [proper noun] -W-/wise men of [preposition, noun, ms, pl, construct]
~>=~-/execute [preposition, Haphel, infinitive construct].
459
KB
2
, 1920r; BDB, 1101r; Holladay, 412r.


[72]

Furthermore, the use of this verb in the Aramaic section of Daniel is both subtle and quite telling.
That is, in three of its uses, m
e
n~h appears depicting a royal authority exercising his commanding will and
imposing his resolve on others [Daniel 2:24, 49; 3:12]. However, in the final use of m
e
n~h, the term is used
in the famous handwriting on the wall episode [5:26]. Here, Mene [m
e
n~h] means that Yahweh has
numbered the days of Belshazzar. The upshot is that this use of m
e
n~h [5:26] places the commanding will
that makes disposition in a far different set of hands.

What the book of Daniel is at pains to disclose is that Yahweh establishes these royal authorities
for a time and then, at His behest, Yahweh summarily discharges them [Daniel 2:21]. In Daniel 2:24b,
Nebuchadnezzar exercises his dominion seemingly at his own whim and will. However, as we shall see in
Daniel 5:26 with Belshazzar, men like Nebuchadnezzar are not exempt from the fact that their royal power
bloc is in the hands of Yahweh; it is Yahweh who ultimately and decisively implements His commanding
will and levies His resolve. To put the same thing another way, the book of Daniel is the account of the
clash of two imperiums, world power structures of one form or another and the kingdom of God.
461
With
this in mind, what the book of Daniel especially heightens is the unflagging truth that, appearances to the
contrary, it really is God Almighty Yahweh who has the final say in this world of rival political powers.

Daniel 2:24c-d he went and thus spoke to him [Arioch] Do not execute the wise men of Babylon
is an utterance that is punctuated three times. The first punctuation mark comes after he went and features
a l
e
garmeh; the second is after spoke to him and is a rebT
a
; and the final punctuation mark is a z~qf
q~tn coming after Babylon.

Grammar: the grammar of Daniel 2:24c opens with the main verb he went and is followed by
another verbal clause and thus spoke to him;
462
the grammar of 2:24d opens with the direct object of the
main imperative the wise men of Babylon followed by the imperative/request do not execute.
463

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:24c is to introduce the request of Daniel to Arioch.
The syntax of the jussive sense of the request does in fact express Daniels will in the matter;
464
at the same
time, as in Hebrew, the jussive sense of the request respects the difference in status and circumstance as
Daniel, the inferior in this case, addresses Arioch, the man who holds Daniels life in his hands.
465

Daniel 2:24e bring me before the king is an utterance that is punctuated with a z~qf q~tn,
signaling a slight pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:24e opens with the imperative bring me followed by the prepositional
phrase before the king.
466

460
A.R. Pete Diamond, m
e
n~h, in NIDOTTE [H4948].

461
William J. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation: A Theology of Old Testament Covenants
(London: Paternoster Press, 1984), 201-02.

462
The main verb in 2:24c is -./he went [Peal, perfect, 3
rd
, ms].

463
The directive form is >=~ [Haphel, imperfect, 2
nd
, ms, jussive sense]-.
[negative].

464
Bauer-Leander 78 r-s.

465
See IBHS 34.3b on this point.

466
The directive in 2:24e is .-~/bring me [Haphel, imperative, ms, with a 1
st
, cs, suffix].


[73]

Syntax: the line once more is a polite but urgent request from an underling to a superior.
467
The
syntax of the prepositional phrase does reflect the political protocols of Assyria and Persia.
468

Daniel 2:24f and I will make clear the interpretation to the king is the final utterance of 2:24.

Grammar: Daniel 2:24f opens with the direct object the interpretation followed by a
prepositional phrase to the king and then the main verb I will make known.
469

Syntax: the front loading of the direct object the interpretation is probably intentional on
Daniels part. He intends that the focus of the utterance be front and center.
470

The syntactical-semantic thrust of the Pael stem is probably causative;
471
Daniel commits himself
to providing a clear and accurate account of and interpretation of the dream.
472

Daniel 2:25-45 The success of Daniel in revealing and explaining the dream

Structure

The structure of Daniel 2:25-45 may be set out thus:

Preliminaries:
Ariochs presentation of Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar, 2:25
Nebuchadnezzars addresses to Daniel, 2:26

Report of Daniels speech to Nebuchadnezzar:
Daniels acknowledgment of the source of his information, 2:27-28
Daniels revelation of the content of the dream, 2:29-35
Daniels revelation of the meaning of the dream, 2:36-45

467
See Bauer-Leander 84 a.

468
On this point, see Montgomery, 161; Slotki, 15.

469
The direct object is . [disjunctive waw, definite article, noun, ms, sg]; the main verb
is .W. [Pael, imperfect, 1
st
, cs].

470
See Van der Merwe 47.2.(i).

471
See Bauer-Leander 76 g.

472
The reader is referred to Daniel 2:4 for the lexical information on these terms.

[74]

Preliminaries:

Ariochs presentation of Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar, 2:25

Genre: the genre of Daniel 2:25 is that of a simple report. The reader may assume that Daniel 2:25
accurately recounts this single event in the flow of the second chapter.
473

Paragraph sense

Preliminaries 2:25-26

(i) [Continuation of narrative] So, then, Arioch quickly brought Daniel before the king;
(ii) [Elaboration of (i)] and thus spoke to him as follows,
(iii) [Ariochs speech] I have found a man from the sons of the exiles of Judah who can make known
the interpretation to the king.
(iv) [Response; continuation of narrative] So, the king answered and said to Daniel, whose name was
Belteshazzar;
(v) [Interrogative arising from (iv)] Are you able to declare to me the dream I saw and the
interpretation?

Daniel 2:25a So, then, Arioch quickly brought Daniel before the king is a sentence that is
punctuated with an àtnach, indicating a major pause in the reading of Daniel 2:25.

Grammar: the sentence opens with a temporal adverb so, then followed by the subject of the
sentence Arioch then the verbal element quickly brought with the direct object Daniel and then a
prepositional phrase before the king.
474

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:25a is to present the reader with the next event,
temporally, in the flow of events in Daniel 2.
475

The syntax of the preposition on the infinitive construct quickly uses the infinitive as a
substantive, an object of the preposition, b
e
.
476
The use of the preposition may be instrumental with haste
and function essentially as an adverb quickly.

Lexical: of lexical interest is the sense of the infinitive construct quickly. Usually, this verb is
translated haste or hurry.
477
BDB notes that one may gloss the phrase with in alarm.
478
The Septuagint
traditions gloss with spoud, a noun that has a wide range of senses: [1] haste, [2] zeal, pains, trouble, [3]
and earnestness in the sense of serious engagement in some pursuit.
479

473
Sweeney, 536.

474
The temporal adverb is .; the verbal element has a preposition prefixed to an
infinitive construct: ~-~>~>/quickly [preposition, Hithpael, infinitive construct]
-.~/brought [Haphel, perfect, 3
rd
, ms].

475
See Bauer-Leander 68 a, who glosses sodann; Rosenthal 89.

476
Bauer-Leander 85 h.

477
Holladay, 399r; KB
2
, 1832r; also Bauer-Leander 85 h [in haste].

478
BDB, 1084r; although BDB does adopt the traditional gloss in haste.

479
LSJ, 1630-31.


[75]

Daniel 2:25b and thus spoke to him as follows is a sentence that is punctuated with a rebT
a
,
indicating a brief pause in the reading of the line. The sentence carries forward the report to
Nebuchadnezzar in the ensuing brief speech of Arioch.

Daniel 2:25c I have found a man from the sons of the exiles of Judah is an utterance that is
punctuated with a z~qf q~tn, indicating a brief pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:25c opens with the main verb I have found followed by the direct object
a man that is qualified by a prepositional phrase of origin from the sons of the exiles of Judah.
480

Syntax: the syntax of the preposition - mTn/from does signal the national origin of the man
whom Arioch presents to the king.
481

Lexical: the reader will note that Ariochs claim I have found is a bit of a stretch; he did not
find Daniel, rather Daniel found him. The verb [~kach] may be glossed to find someone with the
accusative of what is found following.
482
The fact that Arioch accepts the credit for finding Daniel may
explain the haste with Arioch brings Daniel to the king.

Arioch tells the king that the man whom he has found is among them as an exile. On the lips of
Arioch in this historical setting, exile is a pejorative. At the very least, since Nebuchadnezzar was the man
responsible for the defeat of Judah and, accordingly, Daniel was his exile; Arioch is once more currying
some favor with Nebuchadnezzar.

The reader should appreciate the spiritual and political devastation that attended the exile.

From the political point of view, the exile meant the end of Israel as a political/national entity.
The exile meant, for all intents and purposes, that Israel as a nation simply ceased to exist. 2 Kings 24:12-
15 tell us that Nebuchadnezzar deported the official class, the political and military leaders from Jerusalem
to Babylon. Essentially, as an exile, Daniel stands before Nebuchadnezzar as a stateless man.

From the spiritual point of view, the exile meant the departure of the presence of Yahweh from His
people. Lamentations 2:1 makes this point as well as Ezekiel 11:23: The glory of Yahweh ascended from
the midst of the city [Jerusalem].

From the spiritual point of view, the exile was an act of Divine judgment on the faithlessness of
the people. In Jeremiah 13:19, the prophet announces the fact of the exile; in 13:22, he discloses the
reason: because of your great guilt. Indeed, in Daniel 9, the prophet will admit as much and seek national
forgiveness for the sins committed every strata of Israelite society.

Finally, from a spiritual point of view, the exile revealed what a faithful remnant would look like.
The book of Daniel focuses on four people, four deported, politically and spiritually agonizing people,
people who respond to the exile in faith. Daniel has committed himself to accommodate his culture where
he can and draw the line where he must; his comrades will do the same. At the same time, the extraordinary
faith of Daniel and friends is seen in terms of their conundrum: With the dissolution of the political and
spiritual advantages of the original covenant promises, was the covenant itself in jeopardy? Daniel clings to
the hope that it is not!

480
The main verb is W-~/I have found [Haphel, perfect, 1
st
, cs]; the prepositional phrase
is .>/from the sons of [preposition with a noun, ms, pl, construct] .--/the exiles
[definite article, noun, fm, sg] ~ /of Judah.

481
For this use of the preposition, see BDB, 1101; Bauer-Leander 69 t.

482
KB
2
, 1994r; BDB, 1115r; Holladay, 421r.

[76]

Daniel 2:25d who can make known the interpretation to the king is the final utterance in Daniel
2:25.

Nebuchadnezzars address to Daniel, 2:26

Genre: as above in 2:25, the genre of the address is also a report; the reader may assume that the language
of Daniel 2:26 faithfully represents the gist of what Daniel heard from Nebuchadnezzar.

Daniel 2:26a So, the king answered and said to Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar is an
utterance that has two punctuation marks. The first, a z~qf q~tn, comes after Daniel and indicates a
brief pause in the reading of the line. The second, an àtnach, comes after Belteshazzar and signals the
major pause in the reading of the sentence.

Grammar: Daniel 2:26a opens with the finite verb so answered followed by the subject of
the action in the sentence the king with the auxiliary verb and said with the accompanying indirect
object to Daniel and wrapping up with a relative clause whose name was Belteshazzar.
483

Syntax: the syntax of 2:26a is signaled by the use of the two opening participles that function to
continue the narrative begun in 2:25.
484

Lexical: of some interest to the reader is the authors insertion of Daniels Babylonian name
Belteshazzar.

At one level, the repetition of the name serves as a cohesive device, linking the events in chapter
one, where the name is given, to these events in chapter two.

More to the point, the name itself, as we noted in Daniel 1:7, implies that Daniel is the servant of a
new deity. As noted in connection with Daniel 1:7, Belteshazzar may be a kind of invocation to a pagan
deity to protect the life of the king.

In Daniel 2:26a, Belteshazzar may have been the name Nebuchadnezzar used in addressing
Daniel. If this is the case, then Nebuchadnezzars self-interest is clearly in view in referring to the
Babylonian name of Daniel. That is, the name is gentle reminder of the purpose Daniel has in the presence
of the king.

However, in the context of Daniel chapter two, the juxtaposition of these two names Daniel
[Yahweh is judge] and Belteshazzar [protect the life of the king] places the clash of radically opposing
worldviews in clear relief. By using these two names, the conflict of two opposing deities is in view, and
the reader need not be in doubt as to the victor. As Daniel has already been told [Daniel 2:20-21] and as he
shall make abundantly clear [Daniel 2:28, 29, 37, 38, 44], Yahweh alone is Lord of history.

Daniel 2:26b Are you able, to declare to me the dream I saw and the interpretation? is the final
utterance in Daniel 2:26.

Grammar: Daniel 2:26b opens with the verbal collocation are you able followed by the
complementary infinitive to declare to me with the direct object the dream and capped off with a
relative clause [that] I saw and the interpretation.
485

483
The two verbs are ~./answered [Peal, participle, ms, sg] and . [simple waw,
Peal, participle, ms, sg]; the relative clause is: l.->/Belteshazzar [proper name]
~/name [noun, ms, sg, construct with a 3
rd
, ms, suffix] [relative marker].

484
For this use of the participles, see Rosenthal 14.
485
The opening verbal collocation is -~-/able [Peal, participle, ms, sg] .~/are you
[interrogative h
e
, predicator of existence, with a 2
nd
, ms, suffix]; the infinitive complement is
.=~-/to make known to me [preposition, Haphel, infinitive construct, with a 1
st
, cs, suffix];

[77]

Syntax: the syntax of Daniel 2:26b is shaped by the interrogative, which emphasizes a certain
amount of skepticism on the part of the Nebuchadnezzar.
486
The reader is left to his/her own devices in
teasing out the content of the kings skepticism. First, his doubt may be personal; that is, the king may be
suspicious that you, a stateless exile from Judah, can deliver the goods. Or, second, his disbelief may be
task related; that is, can you actually tell me what I want to know? Regardless of the content of the
skepticism, the fact that Nebuchadnezzar is, in fact, dubious sets up the storyline very dramatically for what
Daniel is able to clarify.

The reader will note that in the flow of the storyline, the preliminaries close with skepticism and
doubt that Daniel can actually reveal anything; the retort in Daniel 2:27-30 responds to this cynicism with
Daniel witnessing to the source of what he is about to unpack for the king.

Report of Daniels speech to Nebuchadnezzar

Daniel acknowledges the source of his information, 2:27-28

Paragraph sense

(i) [Continuation of narrative] Then, Daniel answered and said in the presence of the king;
(ii) [Content of present narrative] Concerning the secret about which the king has asked,
(iii) [Negation of (ii)] neither a wise man, nor a conjurer, nor a magician, nor an astrologer is able
to make it known to the king.
(iv) [Antithetical statement to (iii)] Nevertheless, there is a God in the heavens who reveals secrets,
(v) [Conjunctive statement to (iv)] and, He has made known to king Nebuchadnezzar what will
happen in the latter days;
(vi) [Transitional statement from (iv-v) to content of dream] the dream and vision of your thoughts
this.

The reader will note the dual reference points in terms of the source of Daniels impending
revelation. First, Daniel affirms what is unable to reveal such matters [2:27c]. The failure of the best and
the brightest of the kings advisors is evident and they have already thrown in the towel; Daniel reminds the
king of as much.

But, second, there is the antithesis, that is, there is a God who routinely clarifies the shape of the
human historys future [2:28b]. The bold type in the paragraph sense lifts out this antithesis. What is
more, the antithesis is also signaled by the back reference of there is in 2:28a [referring to Yahweh] with
are you able in 2:26b [referencing the failure of the intellectual conjurers].

Genre

The genre of Daniel 2:27-28 is straightforward: It is a report of Daniels interview with the
king.
487
As far as authorial intent is concerned, the reader may infer that this is the substance of the
interview as it actually occurred.

Daniel 2:27a Then, Daniel answered and said in the presence of the king is a sentence that is
punctuated with an àtnach, signaling the major pause in the reading of the line.

the relative is ~/ts interpretation [simple waw, noun, ms, sg, construct with a 3
rd
, ms, suffix]
W/I saw [Peal, perfect, 1
st
, cs].

486
Rosenthal 95.
487
Collins, Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, 47.


[78]

Grammar: Daniel 2:27a opens with a participle with subject then, Daniel answered followed
by a prepositional phrase in the presence of the king and concludes with another participle and said.
488

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:27a is to continue the narrative, or in this case, the
report. This narrative function is signaled by the use of the two participles, which routinely indicate a
narrative tense.
489
Indeed, the two participles used here answered and said are used in Biblical
Aramaic to introduce a reported speech.
490

Daniel 2:27b Concerning the secret about which the king has asked is an utterance that is
punctuated with a z~qf q~tn, indicating a slight pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:27b opens with the front-loaded subject the secret and is followed by a
relative clause concerning about with the king has asked.
491

Syntax: Daniel 2:27a opens Daniels speech before the king. Daniel front-loads the issue at hand
for the king concerning the secret. The reader may assume that Daniel intentionally lifts out the focus of
what he is about to say.
492

Lexical: the sense of secret [r~z] draws upon its Persian origin and implies a mystery.
493
The
Septuagint traditions use mustrion, a noun that suggests what is mysterious.
494

Daniel 2:27c neither a wise man nor a conjurer nor a magician nor an astrologer is able to make
it known to the king is the final utterance in 2:27.

Grammar: Daniel 27c opens with the negative particle neither and is followed by a string of
nouns that collectively function as the subject of the main verb a wise man nor a conjurer nor a magician
nor an astrologer with the main verbal collocation is able to make it known closing with a
prepositional phrase to the king.
495

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:27c is to pick up the previous reference to the
mystery/secret and affirm, in the negative, those who have no clue whatsoever into its import.

488
The opening statement is -../Daniel [proper name] ~./answered [Peal,
participle, ms, sg]; the prepositional phrase is .--/the king [definite article, noun, ms, sg]
/in [preposition]; the closing participle is ./and said [copulative waw, Peal, participle,
ms, sg].

489
Rosenthal 14.

490
Miles Van Pelt, Basics of Biblical Aramaic (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 115.

491
The front-loaded subject is ~/the secret [definite article, noun, ms, sg]; the relative clause
is -./has asked [Peal, participle, ms, sg] .--/the king [definite article, noun, ms,
sg]/concerning about which [relative marker].

492
Van der Merwe 47.2(i).

493
Rosenthal 189.

494
LSJ, 1156.
495
The verbal collocation is ~W~-/to make it known [preposition, Haphel, infinitive
construct] -- [Peal, participle, ms, pl].


[79]

The participle followed by the infinitive construct is able to make known is normal Aramaic.
496

The aspect of the participle is able is probably durative,
497
implying the impossibility of ever getting an
answer to the mystery from those mentioned in the sentence.

Daniel 2:28a Nevertheless, there is a God in heaven who reveals secrets is a sentence that is

Grammar: Daniel 2:28a is the counterpoint to 2:27c, opening with a conjunction nevertheless
followed by a predicator of existence there is with the predicate nominative a God modified by a
prepositional phrase in heaven followed by a relative clause who reveals secrets.
498

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:28a is to provide an antithesis to 2:27b-c; the former
are completely out of their depth, nevertheless, there is a God who does clarify mysteries.

The opening conjunction nevertheless [b
e
ram] has adversative force.
499
The reader should
appreciate the tension that is implied here: Daniel is affirming the sovereignty of Yahweh over the plurality
of gods and over the means of accessing them by the best and the brightest in Nebuchadnezzars cabinet.

The use of the singular a God should not be misunderstood. The sense is not that Yahweh is a
God among many, but rather in using the singular Daniel emphasizes the unity of God as against the
plurality of the Babylonian deities referred to in verse 11.
500

The aspect of the participle reveals secrets/mysteries signals a general or universal present
aspect,
501
implying that revealing is characteristic of Yahweh when He chooses to do so.

Lexical: the sense of the verb reveals [g~lah] describes what Yahweh does. The lexicons tell
us that g~lah means to reveal; to g~lah is to make something obscure open and clear or obvious and
apparent.
502
The sense of the participle amounts to a Divine unveiling of what is mysterious.

The reader is alerted to the fact that Yahwehs gift of revelation [g~lah] in 2:28a hearkens back to
Daniels hymn of praise in 2:20-23. In Daniel 2:22, Daniel praises Yahweh because Yahweh reveals/
g~lah deep and hidden things. The upshot is that in Daniel 2:28 Daniel is helping Nebuchadnezzar
understand what Daniel comprehends about Yahweh.

The sense of the lexeme secrets/mysteries has already been discussed.
503
In connection with 2:18,
we noted that r~z/mystery/secret implies that which is beyond human comprehension. This is certainly the

496
Rosenthal 171.

497
Bauer-Leander 81 c; Rosenthal 177.

498
The opening conjunction is >/nevertheless; the predicator of existence is ~-./a God
[noun, ms, sg] ./there is [particle as predicator of existence]; the relative clause is
/secrets/mysteries [noun, ms, pl] .--/who reveals [Peal, participle, ms, pl].

499
Rosenthal 85; Bauer-Leander 264 o.

500
Slotki, 15.

501
Bauer-Leander 81 d.
502
See the notes on Daniel 2:19.

503
See the notes on Daniel 2:18, 28a.

[80]

case here, a point which Daniel has just made to Nebuchadnezzar [2:27b-c]. Later, in the Dead Sea Scrolls
in The Birth of the Chosen One [4Q 534-536], 4 Q536 [fragment 3 verse 8] says that a coming chosen one
will reveal [g~lah] secrets [r~z] like the Most High. There is a larger point here.

The net effect is this: There are some r~z/mysteries/secrets that can only be comprehended with
Divine help, since they are beyond human comprehension. Indeed, this particular r~z/mystery/secret
involves the unfolding of human, geopolitical history beginning with Nebuchadnezzar and after [2:29-30].
In truth, as we shall see, it is Yahweh who enables Nebuchadnezzar to rule [2:38] and it is Yahweh who
will cause others to arise after Nebuchadnezzar [2:39ff]. Daniels divinely disclosed insight into Yahwehs
ultimate sovereignty over geopolitical history, revealed in Daniel 2:20-21 is now applied to the case of
Nebuchadnezzar. If nothing else, the reader should appreciate the programmatic significance of the hymn
of praise to Yahwehs wisdom and power in Daniel 2:20-23 for the dream and its interpretation in Daniel 2.

Daniel 2:28b and He has made known to king Nebuchadnezzar what will happen in the latter
days is an utterance that is punctuated with an àtnach, indicating the major pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:28b opens with the main verb in the line and He has made known
followed by the indirect object/recipient of the knowledge to king Nebuchadnezzar followed by a
relative clause that summarizes the gist of the dreams interpretation what will happen in the latter
days.
504

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:28b is to tease out the consequence of 2:28a. The
sense of the two lines is [1] there is a God who reveals, [2] so then, He has made known to the king.
505

The perfect aspect of the main verb has made known suggests a completed action from
Daniels point of view.
506
The net effect is that Daniel is expressing certainty to the king regarding his
understanding of the dream and its interpretation.

The relative clause what will happen uses an indefinite relative pronoun [m~h] with a relative
marker [dT] to signal a relative clause in the sense of that which will happen.
507

The aspect of the imperfect form of the verb in the relative probably expresses simple futurity.
508

The following prepositional phrase in the latter days supports this aspectual nuance.

Lexical: the sense of the main verb has made known comes from a semantic field of terms for
knowledge and discernment.
509
In this verse, the Haphel stem is causative,
510
yielding a translation such as

504
The main verb is =~/He has made known [copulative waw, Haphel, perfect, 3
rd
, ms];
the relative clause is .=/days [definite article, noun, ms, pl] W.>/in the latter
[preposition, noun, fm, sg, construct] .~-/will happen [Peal, imperfect, 3
rd
, ms] ~/what
[pronoun with a following relative].

505
For this use of the waw, see KB
2
, 1862; Bauer-Leander 70.

506
Rosenthal 98; Van Pelt, 76; see also Bauer-Leander 79 h.

507
Bauer-Leander 108 n.
508
Rosenthal 98.

509
See Knowledge, discernment, shrewd, wisdom, in NIDOTTE.

510
Rosenthal 99; Bauer-Leander 36 r-z; Van Pelt, 77.


[81]

to cause to know or less woodenly to inform.
511
Holladay goes with to let someone know or communicate
with.
512

Once more, the shadow of the hymn of praise to the wisdom and power of Yahweh in Daniel 2:20-
23 is discernible. The main verb [y~da/know] is also used in the hymn [2:21c-d, 22b, 23 c-d]. In 2:21c-d,
it is Yahweh who provides [1] wisdom to the wise and [2] understanding to those who know [y~da]
discernment. In Daniel 2:22b, the basis for this ability to dispense wisdom and understanding rests with
Yahweh Himself, who knows [y~da] what is obscure to humanity in general. Finally, the fact that Daniel
can approach Nebuchadnezzar with the solution to the mystery is owing to what Yahweh has done for
Daniel. That is, in Daniel 2:23c-d, Daniel praises Yahweh who has [1] made known [y~da] what was asked
and [2] let Daniel know [y~da] the solution to the kings mystery. The reader is invited to appreciate the
influence of the hymn of praise to the wisdom and power of Yahweh in Daniel 2:20-23 as Daniel lives out
the practical outcomes of that great hymn.

What will happen is a phrase that is fairly straightforward. The verb used here [h
,
v~h] is translated
to happen,
513
or to come to pass.
514
The Septuagint traditions use ginomai, a verb that points to that which
comes into being, used specifically of events in the sense of to take place, to come to pass, and simply to
be.
515

The temporal phrase in the latter days is a bit tricky. The English versions translate the phrase
in different ways. Some opt for in the last days or at the end of days, translations that carry
eschatological/end times connotations with them. Others go with in the latter days; and yet others prefer a
more colloquial translation such as in the future or in days to come.

The joker in the pack is the noun translated latter [ach
a
rTt]. The noun may be translated
afterward or simply later.
516
Rosenthal notes that the noun is an abstract term and translates ach
a
rTt with
end,
517
as does KoNhler-Baumgartner.
518

The noun ach
a
rTt is found among a semantic field of terms for delay.
519
Within this field,
ach
a
rTt may be translated end, extremity or farthest, referencing time that is deferred.
520
The Dead Sea
Scrolls use this noun in 4Q 563 [A Priestly Vision] to depict the latter part of a priests life during which he
is exposed to persecution. Furthermore, in 11Q 10, an Aramaic translation of the book of Job, the
translators refer to the latter [ach
a
rTt] days of Job during which Yahweh greatly blessed him.
Accordingly, there is some evidence to support translating ach
a
rTt in the sense of in the future or in days

511
BDB, 1095r.

512
Holladay, 407; see also KB
2
, 1889r.

513
KB
2
, 1859r.

514
BDB, 1089r.

515
LSJ, 349.

516
Bauer-Leander 68 v as used in 2:29.

517
Rosenthal 57; see also Bauer-Leander 51 f.

518
KB
2
, 1810r.
519
See Delay, in NIDOTTE.

520
Bill T. Arnold, ach
a
rTt, in NIDOTTE.


[82]

to come. This sense is also supported by the appearance of ch
a
rA , a preposition from the same root word,
in Daniel 2:29.

The reader should note that this phrase in latter days in similar terminology also appears in the
Hebrew Bible.
521
For the most part, this phrase as used in the Hebrew Bible signifies some future
undifferentiated period of time in which something decisive [or disastrous], a crossroads if you will, occurs
[Deuteronomy 4:30; 31:29; Jeremiah 23:20; 30:24; Ezekiel 38:8; Amos 4:2]. John Collins observation
neatly summarizes the point: The biblical phrase ~ W. typically refers to some
decisive change at a future time.
522
From the standpoint of the Hebrew Bible, in latter days is quite
general and refers not strictly to the end of the world, but to what will happen one day, a goal for history
some time in the future (cf. 10:14).
523

The sum of the matter is this: In the latter days, when read from Nebuchadnezzars point of view
would simply imply in days to come or perhaps at some point in the future. Indeed, the use of similar
terminology in Daniel 2:29a what will come to pass later lends credence to this reading.

At the same time, when we get into the content of the dream and its interpretation, Yahweh seems
intent on making a larger point regarding the future of human history. That is, in Daniel 2:34-35, the
content of Nebuchadnezzars dream includes a stone made without human hands [2:34a] that effectively
brings an end to the statue in Nebuchadnezzars dream [2:34b-35]. When Daniel commences to interpret
this stone in the latter part of the interpretation, Daniel refers to the God of heaven establishing a kingdom
that will be permanent [2:44a-b]. In fact, Daniel goes so far as to say that this kingdom will put an end to
all the kingdoms represented by the various parts of the statue in Nebuchadnezzars dream [2:44d-e].

In conclusion, what matters to Nebuchadnezzar pertaining to in the latter days involves his own
political future; fair enough. Nebuchadnezzar will listen for themes regarding his interests in the future.
But, as Daniel 2:20-23 has pointed out, Yahweh is in charge of human history; Yahweh changes eras and
epochs to conform to His will. Accordingly, there is more in Nebuchadnezzars dream than meets the eye;
Yahweh, through Daniel, will give demonstration of His wisdom and power in geopolitical events
extending into the future and leading to the establishment of His kingdom in perpetuity. To be sure, as the
reader moves through the dream and its interpretation, the reader will take note of how Daniel 2:31-35 [the
dream] and Daniel 2:36-45 [the interpretation] furnish commentary on the hymn of praise to the power and
wisdom of God in Daniel 2:20-23. The upshot is that the dream and its interpretation contain a broader
message concerning in the latter days.

Daniel 2:28c your dream and the vision within your head upon your bed this is the final

Grammar: the utterance opens with the subject of the line your dream and the vision within
your head followed by a prepositional phrase upon your bed and concludes with the demonstrative
adjective this.

Daniel acknowledges the content of the dream, 2:29-35

521
Genesis 49:1; Numbers 24:14; Deuteronomy 4:30; 31:29; Isaiah 2:2; Jeremiah 17:11; 33:20;
30:24; 48:47; 49:35; Ezekiel 38:8, 16; Daniel 10:14; Hosea 3:5; Amos 4:2; 8:10; Micah 4:1.

522
Collins, Daniel, 161.

523
Baldwin, 91.

[83]

Paragraph sense

(i) [Daniels opening remark] You, O king, your thoughts upon your bed turned to what will happen
later;
(ii) [Continuation of discourse] so, the One who reveals mysteries makes known to you what will
happen.
(iii) [Disclaimer relative to (ii)] As for me, not on the basis of wisdom that is within me superior to any
living man,
(iv) [Disclaimer stated] has this mystery been revealed to me;
(v) [Disclaimer in (iii-iv) explained] but, in order that the interpretation to the king is made known,
(vii) [Explanation of (v)] namely, the thoughts of your mind you would understand.

Content of the dream

(viii) [Commencement of report of content] You, O king, were looking and behold, a single great statue,
(ix) [Elaboration of (viii)] this great and exceedingly radiant statue was standing before you;
(x) [Further elaboration of (viii-ix)] and also, its appearance was frightening.

What Nebuchadnezzar saw in the dream

(xi) [Enumeration of characteristics] That statue its head pure gold,
(xii) [Further enumeration] its chest and arms silver;
(xiii) [Further enumeration] its belly and thighs bronze.
(xiv) [Further enumeration] Its legs iron;
(xv) [Further enumeration] its feet partly of iron and partly of decorative tile.
(xvi) [Continuation of dream narrative] You continued looking until a stone was cut without the use
of human hands,
(xvii) [Next event in the dream narrative] then, it [the stone] struck the statue upon its feet of iron and
decorative tile;
(xviii) [Effect of (xvii)] and so, it [the stone] shattered them.
(xix) [The effects of (xviii)] Then, they were shattered without distinction the iron, the decorative
tile, the bronze, the silver and the gold,
(xx) [Result of (xvii-xix)] and so, they became like chaff from the summer threshing floor,
(xxi) [Elaboration of result in (xx)] and so the wind carried them,
(xxii) [Fate of the statue] and there was not a trace to be found of them.
(xxiii) [Antithesis to (xvi-xxii)] however, the stone that had struck the statue,
(xxiv) [Elaboration of antithesis in (xxiii)] became a great mountain and filled the earth.

The paragraph opens with some preliminaries that Daniel considers important for the king to
understand [2:29-30]. In the first two lines of the paragraph [2:29a-b], Daniel informs Nebuchadnezzar that
Daniel is aware of the kings preoccupation with the future of his regime. Then, Daniel reminds
Nebuchadnezzar of the way in which Daniel came to possess this insight into the kings inner thought
world because of revelation from Yahweh [2:30].

The content of the dream basically converges on a great statue; that is, what the king saw, how he
responded, and, most importantly, the complete obliteration of this single, great statue.


[84]

To begin with, the king sees in his dream a single great and radiant statue [2:31]. Due to the
appearance of the statue, Nebuchadnezzars response was terror.

Then, Daniel describes the makeup of the statue, enumerating its characteristics beginning with its
head [2:32a] and ending with its feet [2:33b]. The reader will note that two dissimilar qualities are evident
in this statue. That is, while it is constructed of the finest materials [2:32a-33a] gold, silver, bronze and
iron when the dreamer comes to view the feet, they are composite and fragile [2:33b]. The reader of this
paragraph should appreciate the sense of vulnerability that seems to be conveyed regarding the statue in
the dream to this point. Moreover, there is tension in this paragraph; that is, the tautness between the
highest quality and strongest materials in the makeup of the statue coexisting with its fatal defenselessness.
This single great statue is fatally flawed as the remainder of the paragraph makes abundantly clear.

The paragraph builds to an unexpected climax: A stone of unknown origin [2:34a] appears and
attacks this imposing statute at its point of vulnerability [2:34b]. From this point forward in the revelation
of the content of the dream, the focus is upon this stone.

The denouement for the statue is complete shattering at the hands of the stone [2:34c-35a]. What
the stone shatters the wind disperses like so much chaff [2:35b-d]. The net effect of the stone upon the
statue is that not a trace is left of the statue [2:35d].

The shattering of the statue by the stone is the opening for the stone, which morphs into a great
mountain that fills the earth [2:35e-f].

The reader of this paragraph should appreciate the tension it builds as we await Daniels
interpretation. Thus, reading for details concerning who or what the chest, the arms, the belly and thighs,
and the legs and feet represent might constitute a missing of the forest for the trees. Rather, the reader is
introduced to the ultimate triumph of this stone, which seemingly comes out of nowhere and utterly
vaporizes the statue. The upshot is that the figure of the stone is what dominates the content of the dream
and what the reader awaits in the way of an elaboration.

Genre

Daniel 2:29-45 is made up of a dream report [2:29-35], which recounts the content of the dream
and a response to the dream report in the form of a dream interpretation [2:36-45], which unpacks the
meaning of the dream. The dream report is designed to recount the principle elements of a dream
experience.
524
As a practical matter for readers, this implies that the reader awaits the dream
interpretation in 2:36-45 and concentrates here on understanding the principle elements of the dream.

Daniel 2:29a You, O king, your thoughts upon your bed turned to what will happen later is the
opening utterance in the dream report. It is punctuated with an àtnach, signaling the major break in the

Grammar: Daniel 2:29a opens with the addressee You, O king and then the subject of the
sentence your thoughts with a modifying prepositional phrase upon your bed followed by the main

524
Collins, Forms of Old Testament Literature, 108.

[85]

verb turned to and concludes with a relative clause as the direct object of the main verb what will
happen later.
525

Syntax: The opening personal pronoun You probably has some emphasis to be attached to
it,
526
since the main verb is already inflected for the second person subject [you]. There may be some level
of psychological focusing going on here. The content of this psychological focusing may be implied in the
two following second person pronominal suffixes your thoughts upon your bed. That is, Daniel is aware
of the kings musings as he rests in his bed, before he has his dream, mentioned previously in 2:28.

The use of a singular noun thought(s) with a verb written in the plural turned to [3
rd
, person,
plural] suggests that the noun is to be read as a collective and the writer of Daniel 2:29 has written a
plural verb to accord with the sense.

Lexical: the writer affirms that the king was lying in bed with thoughts [ra!n] running through
his mind. KoNhler-Baumgartner offers some enlightening Ancient Near Eastern cognates for thoughts
[ra!n]. For example, there is a Syriac cognate [re!y~n~] that may be translated will or thinking; similarly,
there is a Mandaean cognate [ruiana] that indicates a thought.
527
Montgomery affirms that the noun
thought [ra!n] is a development from the Syriac [pleasure] to the Arabic [purpose], and then to thought
[ra!n].
528
In the Septuagint tradition of Theodotion, we find dialogismos used for thoughts [ra!n], a
Greek noun that may be translated calculation or consideration.
529
The kings thoughts would seem to
encompass his intentions or designs for the future [what will happen later].

The writer tells us that the kings thoughts [ra!n] turned to [s
e
lq] what will happen in the future.
The verb s
e
lq is normally translated to go up or to come up.
530
This nuance attached to thoughts is
unique to Daniel in the Aramaic Old Testament. BDB notes that s
e
lq in the sense of to arise is used
figuratively of thoughts. Theodotion uses anabain, which may be translated to spring up.
531
Slotkis take
on this line may be noted: Before falling asleep, the kings mind was filled with ruminations about what
was to pass.
532

Naturally, Nebuchadnezzar is concerned about what will happen later. The king is most
concerned with later [ach
a
rA d
e
n>]. The prepositional phrase later [ach
a
rA d
e
n>] signifies what
happens at some point in the future.
533

525
The subject is .= [noun, ms, sg, construct with a 2ns, ms, suffix]; the main verb is
- [Peal, perfect, 3
rd
, ms, pl].

526
Bauer-Leander 72 a.

527
KB
2
, 1983.

528
Montgomery, 164.

529
LSJ, 402.

530
KB
2
, 1938.

531
LSJ, 98.

532
Slotki, 15.
533
See Bauer-Leander 68 v.


[86]

Daniel 2:29b so, the One who reveals mysteries makes known to you what will happen is the final

Grammar: 2:29b opens with a participial clause as subject so, the One who reveals followed
by the direct object of the participial clause mysteries and then the main verb makes known to you
with the direct object as a relative clause what will happen.
534

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:29b is to continue the thread of the dream report.
535

The use of the participle the One who reveals implies that Yahwehs revealing work is
simultaneous with His making known to the king the substance of his dream.
536
Revealing may be looked
upon as an activity that is characteristic of Yahweh at times set by Him.

The syntactical-semantic thrust of the Haphel stem on the main verb makes known should be
taken into account by the reader. The Haphel stem is causative,
537
thus pointing to Yahwehs roll through
Daniel in bringing comprehension to Nebuchadnezzar concerning his dream. As in Daniel 2:28 where the
verb is used in the same Haphel stem, the sense is to cause to know or less woodenly to inform.
538

Holladay goes with to let someone know or communicate with.
539

It would seem that by using the Haphel of y~d~! Daniel is once more back-referencing the great
hymn to Yahwehs wisdom and power [2:22-23 (used twice)]. In Daniel 2:29b, Daniel makes it abundantly
clear that not only does Yahweh share His wisdom and knowledge with men like Daniel, Yahweh also
shares His knowledge [Haphel of y~d~!] through Daniel with men like Nebuchadnezzar. Later in the
book of Daniel [11:33-35], Daniel will use a verb from the same semantic field [V~kal] to highlight those
who bring comprehension to many. The reader must weigh and consider this motif in Daniel: Yahweh is
vitally interested in imparting His knowledge of events with others through those who are privy to them.
The book of Daniel is tied together [chapter 2 and chapter 11] in part by the theme of bringing
comprehension to as many as will listen.

Daniel 2:30a As for me, not on the basis of wisdom that is within me, superior to any living man
is an utterance that is punctuated with a z~qNf q~tn, indicating a slight pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:30a opens with a pronominal expression as for me followed by a negated
prepositional phrase not on the basis of wisdom with a relative clause that more closely defines the

534
The opening participial clause with direct object is . [definite article, noun ms, pl]
.-- [simple waw, Peal, participle, ms, sg]; the main verb is =~ [Haphel, perfect, 3
rd
, ms
with a 2
nd
, ms, suffix].

535
For this use of the simple waw, see KB
2
, 1862.

536
Rosenthal 177.

537
Van Pelt, 77; Bauer-Leander 76 i-n.

538
BDB, 1095r.

539
Holladay, 407; see also KB
2
, 1889r.


[87]

wisdom that is within me and concludes with another prepositional phrase superior to any living
man.
540

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:30a is to present a disclaimer on Daniels part. The
conjunction that is used by the writer to open Daniel 2:30 may function as an adversative.
541
Moreover, the
presence of the negative particle not also points to an antithetical sentence.
542
The disclaimer is a
natural result for Daniel of the hymn of praise to Yahwehs wisdom and power in Daniel 2:20-23.

The negated prepositional phrase not on the basis of wisdom uses the preposition [b
e
] in an
instrumental sense through or by means of;
543
the Guidebook glosses on the basis of in an attempt to
capture the instrumental nuance.

The relative clause that is within me more closely defines the wisdom that Daniel has in mind.
Used in conjunction with the preceding prepositional phrase, the general sense of the prepositional phrase
and the relative is to underline the limits of human wisdom or native ability.
544
Indeed, the advisors closest
to Nebuchadnezzar have already admitted as much in Daniel 2:10-11, when they threw in the towel. Now,
Daniel admits as much of himself.

The closing prepositional phrase elevates Daniels own sense of limitation. Daniel affirms to
Nebuchadnezzar that he does not possess any wisdom within himself that is superior to any living man.
The function of the preposition used here [mTn] is comparative in the sense of superior to.
545
Thus,
Daniels humility comes to the fore, owing to the all-encompassing wisdom and power of Yahweh [2:20-
23]. At the same time, Daniel is also exalting the wisdom of Yahweh to unveil the shape of the future, over
which He is sovereign.

Daniel 2:30b has this mystery been revealed to me is an utterance that is punctuated with an àtnach,
pointing to the major pause in the reading of the line.

540
The negated prepositional phrase is ~-W>/on the basis of wisdom [preposition, noun,
fm, sg] .-/not [negative particle]; the defining relative clause is >/within me [preposition with a 1
st
,
sg, suffix] ./is [particle of existence] [relative marker]; and the closing prepositional
phrase is .W/living man [definite article, adjective, ms, pl]--/any [noun, ms, sg,
construct]/superior to [preposition].

541
Bauer-Leander 70 o.

542
On this point in Hebrew, see Gibson 142 b; Andersen, 181.

543
Bauer-Leander 69 b; KB
2
, 1830r.

544
On this point, see BDB, 1093r.

545
KB
2
, 1919r; see also Bauer-Leander 94 h.

[88]

Grammar: Daniel 2:30b opens with the subject of the passive perfect verb this mystery
followed by the main verb has been revealed and the prepositional phrase to me.
546

Syntax: the syntactical point of the passive perfect has been revealed is probably to underline
a present perfect nuance,
547
or an historical perfect.
548
The reader is referred to Daniel 2:28 for notes on
reveal and mysteries.

Daniel 2:30c but, in order that the interpretation to the king is made known is a sentence that is
punctuated with a z~qf q~tn, signaling a brief pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: the grammar of Daniel 2:30c opens with an adversative but followed by a
subordinating conjunction collocation in order that with the subject of the line the interpretation
and a prepositional phrase to the king and the main verb is made known.
549

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:30c is to tease out another disclaimer. The
adversative particle underlines the fact that the mystery has been revealed to Daniel [2:30b], but not for his
own personal enlightenment; quite the contrary, but in order to pass along what he has been shown to
Nebuchadnezzar.
550
The reader should take due notice of the moral implication of possessing a direct
revelation from Yahweh: Such revelation is not for personal enlightenment alone.

The more positive purpose for this revelation of a mystery to Daniel is in order that the king
knows the interpretation of the dream.
551
As far as Daniel is concerned, revelation from Yahweh is
purposive pass it on.

Finally, the syntactical-semantic import of the Haphel stem on the main verb is made known
once more points to causation, this time on Daniels part. The upshot is that Daniel is going to bring
comprehension to Nebuchadnezzar concerning his dream. As noted above, the book of Daniel insists that
the covenant people are in the business of bringing comprehension [y~da! here and in 11:32 (those who
know their God); and V~kal in 11:33, 35].

Lexical: the reader is referred to the notes on Daniel 2:4 for the gory details concerning
interpretation [p
e
>r]. At this point, we offer a summary of the interpretation/ p
e
>r.

For openers, the ANE cognates point to p
e
>r point to a diagnosis, a solution, or a meaning of
something that is obscure.

Turning from linguistic cognates to the function of interpretation [p
e
>r] among divines in the
Ancient Near East, the reader is reminded of the tasks of these heavenly middlemen. The interpretation

546
The subject is ~./this [adjective, ms, sg] ./mystery [definite article, noun, ms, sg];
the verb is --/has been revealed [Peal, perfect, 3
rd
, ms].

547
Van Pelt, 86.

548
Bauer-Leander 80.

549
The opening adversative is ~-/but [adversative particle]; the subordinating collocation is
/that [particle] >/order/end that [noun, fm, sg, construct]-/to [preposition]; the subject
is . [definite article, noun, ms, sg]; and the verb is =~/is made known [Haphel,
imperfect, 3r, ms].

550
For the adversative use of the particle, see Bauer-Leander 70 q; Rosenthal 85.

551
This subordinating collocation points to purpose; see Bauer-Leander 109 r; Rosenthal 86.

[89]

has two aspects for these among whom Daniel rubs shoulders: [1] explain the symbolism of the dream in
language the dreamer can grasp, and [2] dissolve via the interpretation any evil associations for the
dreamer.
552
It is no too much to assume that Nebuchadnezzar was driven to distraction over what he must
have assumed lay beneath this dream: Some ill-omened outcome for his regime in the future. On the theory
that to understand is to have the means to overcome, the king sought the kind of comprehension that would
rid him of the impact of the dream.

As already noted in the previous paragraph, the p
e
>r presumed some level of divine aid
supporting the p
e
>r of the professional interpreters. To put the same thing another way, the p
e
>r would
in the fullness of time carry the weight of revelation from the gods. It would appear that a similar use is
evident in a very fragmentary document known as The Book of Giants. To make a long story short, p
e
>r
is found in these manuscripts in the sense of [1] above. It should be noted, however, that this document is
quite fragmentary and piecing it back together, including what one reads concerning p
e
>r, is a shot in the
dark.

The sum of the matter is this: When Daniel promises in 2:30to make known to Nebuchadnezzar
the interpretation/ p
e
>r of the dream, the reader may infer that his task is more along the lines of [1]
above; that is, to provide the king with a solution, a meaning, or an explanation of his dream. Indeed,
understanding the thoughts of his mind is what Daniel has in store for the king, per Daniel 2:30c.

Daniel 2:30c and the thoughts of your mind you would understand close out Daniel 2:30.

Grammar: Daniel 2:30c opens with the direct object of the main verb the thoughts of your mind
and concludes with the main verb you would understand.
553

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:30c is to explicate the sense of making known the
interpretation [2:30b]; namely that, Nebuchadnezzar would understand the thoughts of his own mind.
554
If
this reading of the syntax is correct, then the syntax of 2:30c supports the notion that Daniel is intent on
bringing comprehension to Nebuchadnezzar concerning the thoughts of his own mind.

The syntax of the genitive construction thoughts of your mind probably reflects agency, where
your mind is the agent behind the kings thoughts.
555

Lexical: the thoughts [ra!yn] that originate within and preoccupy the kings mind is an Aramaic
term we have considered previously in Daniel 2:29. At that point, the ra!yn were the calculations
expended by the king in attempting to understand what the dream was telling him about his political future.

The content of the dream

552
Oppenheim, 218; the reader is referred to pages 217-25 for an excellent discussion of the work
of these interpreters in the Ancient Near East.

553
The direct object is a genitive construction: >>-/your mind [noun, ms, sg, construct with
a 2
nd
, ms, suffix] .= [simple waw, noun, ms, spl, construct]; the main verb is
./you would know [Peal, imperfect, 2
nd
, ms].

554
For this use of the waw, see Bauer-Leander 70 r.

555
John Beekman and John Callow, Translating the Word of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1978), 263.

[90]

At this point, Daniel begins to unpack the content of the dream. At this level, Daniel will deliver
on the first requirement of King Nebuchadnezzar: Tell me the content of the dream [Daniel 2:5-6, 9]. The
content of the dream breaks down into three portions: [1] a description of the statue [Daniel 2:31-33], [2]
the emergence of a stone that fatally strkes the statue [Daniel 2:34-35d], and [3] the stone grows to fill the
earth [Daniel 2:35e-g].

The description of the statue [2:31-33]

Daniel 2:31a You, O King, were looking and behold is the first sentence in Daniel 2:31a, being
punctuated with a pata, signaling a slight pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:31a opens with a personal pronoun you followed by the vocative of
address O, King with the verbal components were looking and behold.
556

Syntax: the verbal components, the participle with a finite verb, can indicate an ongoing activity
on the part of the King in his dream.
557
Daniel may be indicating that he is aware that the king stared for
some time at the statue.

Daniel 2:31b a single, great statue is the opening description of what Nebuchadnezzar saw in his
dream. The brief description is punctuated with a z~qf q~tn, indicating a break in the reading of the line.

Grammar: the line opens with a noun a statue modified by a cardinal number single and
by an adjective great.
558

Lexical: the noun translated statue [ts
e
lNm] probably points to a three dimensional figure with a
head, chest, arms, thighs, legs and feet. In essence, then, this statue has the look of a human figure. As a
human figure, the statue is fitting symbolism for the human kingdoms of the world as distinct from the
kingdom of God.
559

Daniel 2:31c this great and exceedingly radiant statue was standing before you is a sentence that
is punctuated with an àtnach, indicating the major break in the reading of the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:31c opens with the subject of the sentence this statue followed by the
modifiers great and exceedingly radiant then the verb was standing with a final prepositional
phrase before you.
560

Lexical: of obvious interest to the reader is the depiction of the statue as great and exceedingly
radiant.

556
The verbs in the sentence are: =~/you were [Peal, perfect, 2
nd
, ms] ~W/looking [Peal,
participle, ms] and -./and behold [particle].

557
Rosenthal 177; Bauer-Leander 81 q; Montgomery, 165.

558
The noun that opens the line is -l/statue [noun, ms, sg]; the cardinal number is
W/single; and the adjective is .-O [adjective, ms, sg].

559
Hartman and Di Lella, 146; see also Young, 71.d.

560
The modifiers are an adjective: /exceedingly [adjective, ms, sg] ~/radiant
[noun, ms, sg, construct with a 3
rd
, ms, suffix]; the verb is ./standing [Peal, participle, ms, sg].

[91]

The adjective great [rab] implies that the statue was physically imposing.
561
The reader may
assume that, in his dream, Nebuchadnezzar gazes on a colossus, a gigantic statue of imposing physical size.

To this, the writer adds that the statue was exceedingly radiant. The noun glossed radiant [zTw]
seems to be a bit tricky to nail down. KoNhler-Baumgartner translate zTw with radiance or brightness.
562

At the same time, Rosenthal links zTw with an Akkadian cognate [z+mu] that usually points to the facial
features, face, or appearance.
563
Van Pelt goes with radiance, brightness or countenance.
564
Montgomery
concludes that zTw probably stresses the light effect of the statue, in other words, the sheen of the overall
effect of the statue.
565

Overall, then, the depiction of the colossus in Daniel 2:31c is of a statue that is physically
imposing and generally dazzling to the eyes. But, this magnificence is not the only impression struck by the
statue on the dreamer.

Daniel 2:31d its appearance frightening is the closing utterance of Daniel 2:31.

Grammar: Daniel 2:31d is a nominal sentence composed of the subject its appearance and
the predicate frightening.
566

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:31d is to signal the intensity of the effect of the statue
on the dreamer.
567

The fact that the predicate element of the nominal clause is a passive participle is the writers
method of signaling that fright was the more or less generalized effect of the statue.
568

Lexical: the impact of this statue was terror. The Peal participle of d
e
chal means to be dreadful
or to be fearful;
569
or to be terrible.
570

We are not told specifically why this statue inspired such terror, only that its effect of the dreamer
was to render him terror-stricken.

Daniel will now embark on a physical description of the statue, from head to foot [Daniel 2:32-
33].

561
See BDB, 1112.

562
KB
2
, 1864.

563
Rosenthal 188.

564
Van Pelt, 226.

565
Montgomery, 166.

566
The subject of the nominal clause is ~=/its appearance [noun, ms, sg, construct with a
3
rd
, ms, suffix]; the predicate of the noun clause is -W/frightening [Peal, passive participle].

567
For the intensifying use of the waw, see KB
2
, 1862.

568
Bauer-Leander 82 c.

569
KB
2
, 1850.

570
Bauer-Leander 82 c; BDB, 1087r.

[92]

Daniel 2:32a That statue its head pure gold is a sentence that is punctuated with a z~qf

Grammar: Daniel 2:32a opens with overall subject of everything in Daniel 2:32a-33b that
statue followed by the first of five nominal clauses that describe the physical makeup of the statue in the
dream its head pure gold.
571

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:32a is to focus attention on the statue itself. The
focusing element is signaled by the personal pronoun [h|] used as a demonstrative adjective: As for that
statue is the sense of the opening of the line.
572

Lexical: the head of this statue was pure [~b] gold [d
e
hab]. The noun glossed gold [d
e
hab]
simply refers to the precious metal gold.
573
Gold [d
e
hab] is used in the Aramaic sections of the Old
Testament in reference to both religious [Ezra 5:14; 6:5; 7:15, 16, 18] and pagan symbols [Daniel 3:1, 5, 7,
10, 12, 14, 18].

The fact that this gold was described as pure [~b] indicates that the writer is using language
familiar to his readers, depicting the result of the metallurgical art of the day.
574
Regarding the adjective,
pure [~b], both BDB and Holladay gloss this term with good.
575
Robin Wakely notes that Ancient Near
Eastern metallurgy differentiated between the qualities of refined metals. Accordingly, the adjective used
here, in the context of ANE metallurgy, is good [~b], not pure.
576
Whether this distinction should be
pressed is anyones guess.

Daniel 2:32b its chest and arms silver is a line that is punctuated with an àtnach, signaling the
main pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: the sentence is another nominal clause. The subject is chest and arms; the predicate is
silver.

Lexical: the next precious metal in the list is silver [k
e
sap]. Basically, silver [k
e
sap], as it is used
in this line, refers to the metal used for making the chest and arms of this statue.
577
Like gold, silver [k
e
sap]
is also a precious metal used for religious [Ezra 5:14; 6:5; 7:15] and pagan purposes [Daniel 5:4, 23].

The use of first gold and then silver suggests to the modern reader a lessening in value.
Montgomery concurs, noting that the material substances are arranged in order of value.
578

571
The first noun clause that describes the physical makeup of the statue is the predicate:
>/pure [adjective, ms, sg] >~/gold [noun, ms, sg] [relative marker]; the subject is:
~./its head [noun, ms, sg, construct with a 3
rd
, ms, suffix].

572
Van Pelt, 171; Rosenthal 34.

573
KB
2
, 1848; BDB, 1087.

574
On this point, see Robin Wakely, >~, in NIDOTTE [H2298].

575
BDB, 1094; Holladay, 406; also Bauer-Leander 51 h and KB
2
, 1882.

576
Wakely, NIDOTTE [H2298].

577
KB
2
, 1900-01.

578
Montgomery, 166.


[93]

Daniel 2:32c its belly and thighs bronze is the final nominal clause in Daniel 2:32.

Grammar: once more, the writer uses a noun clause. The subject component is belly and thighs
and the predicate element is bronze.

Lexical: the metal in focus in the statue now is bronze [n
e
ch~sh]. Strictly speaking, this noun may
refer to either copper or bronze.
579
BDB notes that the metal is [1] an alloy and [2] notable for strength.
580

If strength is now the functional import of the metal, then we have moved from the prized [gold and silver]
to the powerful [bronze].

Daniel 2:33a its legs iron is a line that is punctuated with an àtnach, pointing to the major pause
in the reading of the line.

Grammar: using the nominal clause, the writer begins with the subject its legs and closes with
the predicate iron.

Lexical: iron [parzel] is an ore that was known, when smelted and shaped, for its strength and
hardness.
581
Taken with the reference in the previous line to bronze, then we have a second element, iron,
that conveys the idea power.

From the precious [gold and silver] to the powerful [bronze and iron], we now move to the
precarious in Daniel 2:33b.

Daniel 2:33b its feet partly of iron and partly of clay is the final noun clause in Daniel 2:33.

Grammar: the nominal clause opens with the subject its feet and closes with the predicate
partly of iron and partly of clay.

Lexical: obviously the composite nature of the feet is presented as the statues most vulnerable
point.

The preposition partly of [mTn] is used as a partitive. The sense is some of it other of it.
582

KoNhler-Baumgartner gloss thus: they were partly this partly that, or a bit of this a bit of that.
583
If
this data is taken at face value, then the feet were some sort of composite of iron and clay.

The term for iron [parzel] has already been discussed in the previous line. The term translated
clay [h
a
saf] is normally formed clay in the sense of some object of pottery, whether potsherd or tile.
584

Obviously, formed clay is difficult to reconcile with what appears to be the composite nature of the feet of
this statue.
The solution to the problem may lie in the imagery of iron mixed with clay. That is, later in the
interpretation, Daniel refers to this composite of iron and clay [Daniel 2:41-43]. In Daniel 2:41, the
composite becomes a metaphor of vulnerability [2:41-42] and disunity [2:43]. The net effect is that the
reader need not press too far the iron/clay imagery in Daniel 2:33b. After all, this is a dream. The best

579
KB
2
, 1929.

580
BDB, 639.

581
Ibid., 137.

582
Holladay, 412; also BDB, 1100.

583
KB
2
, 1919; see also Rosenthal 80.

584
Holladay, 406; so also KB
2
, 1879, opts for moulded clay.

[94]

option is to read Daniel 2:33b the feet were partly iron and partly clay and leave it at that. In the final
analysis, Montgomerys observation is plausible, especially in light of the subsequent interpretation: We
have to think of tile work [emphasis mine] entering into the composition of the figure, applied, as it actually
was, in the way of decoration [emphasis mine].
585
As we shall soon note, this decorative touch becomes
the Achilles heel of the formidable statue.

The description of the destruction of the statue [2:34-35d]

Daniel 2:34a You continued looking until a stone was cut without the use of human hands is the
first sentence in Daniel 2:34a, punctuated with a z~qf q~tn, indicating a slight pause in the reading of the
line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:34a is comprised of an opening sentence with a subject and verb you
continued looking followed by a temporal clause; the temporal clause opens with the temporal indicator
until followed by the subject and predicate of the temporal clause a stone was cut with a concluding
prepositional phrase without the use of human hands.
586

Syntax: the sentence continues Daniels account of the content of the dream, with ominous signs
beginning to develop.

You continued looking uses the perfect of the verb to be [h,w>] with the participle of the verb to
look [ch,z>] to signal an ongoing activity.
587
Fronting Daniel 2:34a in this case the construction carries
forward the thread of the discourse.

The temporal indicator seems to introduce the turning point in Daniels description of the content
of the dream.
588

The Hithpael stem of the verb in the temporal clause was cut indicates both causation as well
as passivity.
589
What is more, this passive/causative nuance is augmented by the following prepositional
phrase. The gist is that the stone was simply acted upon by some unidentified agency.

Without human hands is a prepositional phrase that has the obvious effect of denying human
agency in the creation of this stone.
590

Lexical: of obvious lexical interest is the subject of the temporal clause stone [eben]. The noun
translated stone [eben] should be read in the context of this dream. The net effect of this is that stone
[eben] should be understood as a single stone as opposed to stone used as a building material.
591
What is

585
Montgomery, 167; see also Baldwin, 92.

586
The initial sentence is ~/you continued [Peal, perfect, 2
nd
, ms] ~W/looking [Peal,
participle, ms, sg]; the temporal clause opens with the temporal indicator: , followed by the
verb-subject collocation: >./stone [noun, fm, sg] -~/was cut [Hithpael, perfect, 3
rd
, fm,
sg], and then the prepositional phrase: .-/without [prepositional construction]
>/human hands [preposition, noun, fm, dual].

587
See Rosenthal 177; Bauer-Leander 81 q.

588
For the use of to indicate a temporal clause, see Bauer-Leander 70 v.

589
Rosenthal 99; Bauer-Leander 76 t.

590
For this translation, see Bauer-Leander 108 u [without human assistance].
591
KB
2
, 1806r.

[95]

more, in the light of what the stone actually does, we may assume that this single stone possessed
considerable destructive capability. This single stone could crush and destroy.
592

The chief action in the temporal clause is the creation of the rock; we are told that it was cut
[g
e
zar]. In keeping with the context of the dream, Daniel uses a verb that means to be broken off or to
break away from a block of stone or a mountainside.
593
Holladay offers the very excellent translation was
quarried.
594

Without human hands does communicate that, in his dream, Nebuchadnezzar was aware that the
stone simply appears without human assistance.
595
One wonders if, perhaps, Nebuchadnezzar also
speculated that some form of divine assistance could be in the works here. From the standpoint of the
dreamer, Nebuchadnezzar may well think in terms of his pantheon of gods. Some kind of superhuman
power seems to have infiltrated the kings dream.

The reader would do well to stop and reflect here for a moment. In terms of the destruction of this
formidable colossus, Daniel 2:34a is a turning point. The way the writer narrates Daniels dream report
confronts the reader with an immediate and arresting intervention from some mysterious source. This
puzzling and mystifying element of the dream should not be explained away too quickly; better wait for the
interpretation. For now, we remain in suspense.

Daniel 2:34b then, it struck the statue upon its feet of iron and clay is a line that is punctuated
with an àtnach, indicating the major break in the reading of the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:34b opens with the main verb then, it struck followed by the direct object
the statue rounded off with a prepositional phrase upon its feet of iron and clay.
596

Lexical: the main verb in this line struck [m
e
ch~] is best glossed to strike.
597
A Hebrew
cognate [m~ch>] of this Aramaic verb may be translated to crush; while another Hebrew cognate [m~chats]
means to smite thoroughly or to shatter.
598
The reader may assume that the stone struck the colossus at its
weakest point.

Daniel 2:34c and so, it shattered them is the final sentence in Daniel 2:34. From Daniel 2:34c-
35d, Daniel will report on the effects of the strike in 2:34b. The devastation of this originally formidable
colossus could not be more complete: shattered [2:34c] shattered without distinction [2:35a] became
like chaff [2:35b] carried on the wind [2:35c] and not a trace to be found [2:35d].

592
In Daniel 2, this term stone [eben] appears in 2:34-35, 45.

593
KB
2
, 1844r.

594
Holladay, 401r.

595
For this translation of the phrase, see KB
2
, 1851r; BDB, 1094; Holladay, 402r; and Bauer-
Leander 108 u.

596
The main verb is: W/then it struck [Peal, perfect, 3
rd
, fm, sg].

597
KB
2
, 1914r; BDB, 1099r.

598
See BDB, 562-63.

[96]

Grammar: Daniel 2:34c consists of two words, the verb and so it shattered and the direct
object them.
599

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:34c is to state the existing results of the strike
perpetrated by the stone in Daniel 2:34b. The means by which this existing result is signaled is the syntax
of the main verb, a perfect aspect verb with a waw prefix [w
e
haddqet] and so, it shattered.
600

Lexical: we have a different term for shattering in Daniel 2:34c [d
e
qaq]. This term is a bit more
intense; it may be translated to be crushed into small pieces, to grind up finely, or to shatter into
fragments.
601
Holladay glosses pulverize.
602

The language of Daniel 2:34c teases out the net effect of the strike in 2:34b. The upshot of the
strike is the complete collapse of the once imposing statue. The total destruction is absolute, thorough, and
utterly crushing. There is nothing left to be done save allow the wind to banish the remnants.

Daniel 2:35a Then, they were shattered without distinction the iron, the clay, the bronze, the
silver, and the gold is a sentence that is punctuated with a rebT
a
, that indicates a minor pause in the
reading of the line; the mark may also be used to mark to focal point of a clause.

Grammar: Daniel 2:35a opens with an adverb then followed by the main verb they were
shattered with a modal assertive adverb following without distinction and concluding with the
multiple subjects of the main verb the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold.
603

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:35a is to lift out the immediate results of 2:34c [and
so it shattered them]. To be sure, the adverb that opens the line [bdayin] is used as a coordinating
conjunction in the sense of then.
604
At the same time, Bauer-Leander observe that this adverb can signal a
sense of immediacy.
605
This connotation of suddenness may support the observation above to the effect
that Daniel 2:35a is a focal point of the clause.

599
The verb is ~/and so, it shattered [Haphel, perfect, 3
rd
, fm, sg]; the direct object is
=~/them [independent personal pronoun, 3
rd
, ms, pl].

600
See Bauer-Leander 79 c.

601
KB
2
, 1855r; BDB, 1089r.

602
Holladay, 403r.

603
The opening adverb is .>/then [preposition prefixed to an adverb; the main verb is
/were shattered [Peal, perfect, 3
rd
, ms, pl]; and the modal assertive adverb is ~W-/without
distinction.

604
Rosenthal 89.

605
Bauer-Leander 68 a.

[97]

Without distinction translates a modal assertive adverb. Rosenthal translates without distinction;
606

Bauer-Leander opts for as one or at the same time.
607
The gist of the modal adverb is that this statue in the
aggregate could not withstand the onslaught of the stone.

The main point of the line is that the demise of this overpowering statue is as swift as it is
thorough.

Daniel 2:35b and so, they became like chaff from the summer threshing floor is a line that is

Grammar: Daniel 2:35b opens with the main verb and so, they became followed by a
prepositional phrase like chaff followed by another prepositional phrase from the summer threshing
floor.
608

Syntax: Daniel 2:35b uses waw prefixed to the main verb to signal the final effects of the stone on
the statue.
609
The sentence features the use of a simile like chaff to graphically depict the completely
devastating results of the stone on the statue.

The first prepositional phrase like chaff is a simile. The simile is a poetic technique that
intensifies the assertion in which it is used.
610
The reversal of fortunes is dramatic: gold, silver, bronze,
iron, and clay all dissolved like chaff, waiting to be carried off by the summer winds.

Daniel 2:35c then the wind carried them is a sentence that is punctuated with a z~qf q~tn,
indicating a slight pause in the reading of the line.

Daniel 2:35d and, there was no a trace to be found of them is punctuated with an àtnach,
pointing out the major break in the reading of the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:35d opens with the negated subject element not a trace followed by the
main verb could be found with a concluding prepositional phrase of them.
611

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:35d is to put a period on the fate of the fragments of
the colossal statue. The conjunctive waw simply continues the thread of the discourse to its final
denouement.

606
Rosenthal 93.

607
Bauer-Leander 68 v.

608
The main verb is =~/and so, they became [Peal, perfect, 3
rd
, ms, pl]; the first
prepositional phrase is -/like chaff [preposition prefixed to a noun, ms, sg]; the second
prepositional phrase is /summer [noun, ms, sg]./threshing floor [noun, ms, pl,
construct]/from [preposition].

609
For this use of the waw, see KB
2
, 1862; see also Bauer-Leander 79 c.

610
Alter, 72.

611
The negated subject is .-/no [negative particle] W./trace [noun, ms, sg]-- [noun,
ms, sg, construct]; the main verb is W-~/found [Hithpeel, perfect, 3
rd
, ms].


[98]

Lexical: the term that is translated trace is problematic. Some lexicons go with the more usual
gloss place or location.
612
However, Bauer-Leander, citing an Arabic cognate, opts for trace.
613
Given
the simile that likens the remnants of the once powerful statue to chaff on a threshing floor at the mercy of
the winds, then the translation that depicts the remnants disappearing without a trace fits the context.

The description of the fate of the stone [2:35e-g]

Daniel 2:35e however, the stone that struck the statue is a sentence that is punctuated with a
rebT
a
, indicating a minor pause in the reading of the line. The sentence back references Daniel 2:34c.

Daniel 2:35f became a great mountain is a line that is punctuated with a tifch~, indicating the
final pause before the end of the verse.

Grammar: Daniel 2:35f has a main verb became and a direct object a great mountain.
614

Syntax: the perfect aspect verb became is probably of the historical narrative variety,
depicting what Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream.

Lexical: obviously, the key assertion in this line is that, as far as the dream goes, the stone that
vanquished the colossal statute moved on to become a great mountain.

As far as the adjective goes, great is also used in reference to the statue in Daniel 2:31. The
repetition is probably intentional, indicating a reversal of fortunes for the statue and enduring greatness for
the stone.

The Aramaic term for mountain [|r] has a Hebrew cognate [ts|r], and both simply refer to a
mountain.
615
The normal Hebrew noun for mountain [har] does not appear in Biblical Aramaic, so the use
of the Aramaic noun [|r] for mountain may be a simple necessity. At the same time, in the world of
Nebuchadnezzar, this Aramaic term for mountain, at least in its Hebrew form, was often a term for a
deity.
616
The point is a tentative one, since we are not privy to the full range of Nebuchadnezzars thoughts
at the time. On the other hand, Daniel does use the noun in reporting the content of the dream to the king.
It would not be too much of a stretch to affirm that Daniel would have been aware of the Divine
associations attached to the roots.

Daniel 2:35g and filled all the earth is the final sentence in Daniel 2:35.

Grammar: the sentence opens with the main verb filled and closes with the direct object all
the earth.
617

612
KB
2
, 1829r.

613
Bauer-Leander 51 p.

614
The main verb is ~/became [Peal, perfect, 3
rd
, fm, sg]; the direct object is >/great
[adjective] -/mountain [noun, ms, sg].

615
KB
2
, 1883r; Bauer-Leander 51 l; BDB, 1094r.

616
On this point, see William Foxwell Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 1990), 188. Indeed, in the OT, Yahweh is often identified by the Hebrew cognate [ts|r,
Deuteronomy 32:18; Isaiah 26:4, among others].

617
The main verb is -/and filled [Peal, perfect, 3
rd
, fm, sg]; the direct object is
../the earth [definite article, noun, fm, sg]--/all [noun, ms, sg, construct].

[99]

Lexical: the obvious keys here are the verb filled and the direct object all the earth. The
verb translated filled [m
e
l~] isnt very mysterious. The Aramaic root means to fill.
618
The spatial aspect to
the verb seems clear.

All the earth is a phrase in the Aramaic text of Daniel that appears three times [Daniel 2:35; 4:11;
7:23]. For the most part, there are universalistic associations connected with the phrase. Later, in another
encounter with Nebuchadnezzar, there is reference to a tree that was visible to all the ends of the earth
[4:11]. Then, much later, Daniel is the recipient of a vision concerning a kingdom that will devour or
dominate the wholeearth [7:23].

The sum of the matter is this: The stone comes to a place where its presence is worldwide. The
spread of this mountain is expansive and universal. The stone covers the earth and occupies the world.
619

The interpretation of the dream

Having shown Nebuchadnezzar that he knows the content of the dream, Daniel now proceeds to
declare the interpretation of it. Generally speaking, the interpretation comes in two parts: [1] the
interpretation relative to the statue [2:37-43] and [2] the interpretation relative to the stone [2:44-45].

Now, each of these may be further analyzed. Concerning the statue [2:37-43], each of the parts of
the statue structures a kingdom to follow 2:37-43: [1] the head, 2:37-38, [2] the inferior second and third
kingdoms, 2:39, and then [3] a fourth kingdom, 2:40-43. This fourth kingdom receives the greatest
attention: [1] strong as iron, 2:40, [2] divided, 2:41, [3] internally vulnerable, 2:42, and [4] politically astute
through seeking alliances by marriage, 2:43.

Concerning the stone [2:44-45], there are four components in the structure: [1] the stone is Gods
kingdom, 2:44a, [2] this kingdom will never be destroyed, 2:44b, [3] it is permanent, 2:44c, and [4] this
kingdom will put an end to all other kingdoms, 2:44d-e. The interpretation of the stone is concluded with a
reminder of the dream of the stone, 2:45.

618
BDB, 1100; KB
2
, 1915.

619
P0ter-Contesse and Ellington, 58.

[100]

The interpretation of the statue, 2:37-43

Paragraph sense

Honorific focusing on Nebuchadnezzar

(i) [Declaration of intent] This the dream, now its interpretation we declare in the presence of the
King.
(ii) [Honorific salutation] You, O King King of Kings,
(iii) [Details of honorific] to whom the God of heaven has granted the kingdom, the power, the
strength, and the imperial honor;
(iv) [Further detail of (ii-iii)] wherever the sons of men dwell,
(v) [Further detail of (ii-iv)] or beasts of the field or birds of the air, He has given into your power,
(vi) [Consequence of (ii-v)] thus, He has caused you to rule over all of it.

The head of gold

(vii) [Head of gold/Nebuchadnezzar] You the head of gold

The second kingdom

(viii) [Subsequent to (vii)] After you, another kingdom will arise inferior to yours;

The third, bronze, kingdom

(ix) [Subsequent to (viii)] then, another kingdom, a third of bronze,
(x) [Clarification of (ix)] which will rule over the earth.

The fourth kingdom

(xi) [Subsequent to (ix-x)] Then, a fourth kingdom will come into being, strong as iron;
(xii) [Explication of (xi)] for, as iron smashes and shatters everything,
(xiii) [Completion of explication (xii)] so, like iron that crushes, all these it will shatter and crush.

(xiv) [Reminder] Now, just as you saw the feet and toes, partly of clay and partly of iron,
(xv) [Explication of (xiv)] a divided kingdom it will be;
(xvi) [Explication of (xv)] some of its firmness, like iron, will be within it,
(xvii) [Explication of (xvi)] inasmuch as you saw iron mixed with clay.

(xviii) [Reminder] As the toes of the feet were partly iron and partly clay,
(xix) [Consequence of (xviii)] some of the kingdom will be strong,
(xx) [Consequence of (xvii-xix)] and some of it will be fragile.

(xxi) [Reminder] Now, inasmuch as you saw iron mixed together with clay,
(xxii) [Explication of (xxi)] they will mix together with the seed of men,
(xxiii) [Contrast to (xxii)] but, they will not cling to one another,
(xxiv) [Explication of (xxiii)] just as iron does not mix together with clay.


[101]

The structure of the paragraph [2:37-43] is fairly clearly demarcated in the text. The honorific
focusing on Nebuchadnezzar opens in 2:37a by calling attention to you, O King, and ends by affirming
that Yahweh has given you [Nebuchadnezzar] the rule that he possesses [2:38c]. This inclusio demarcates
the unit.

The interpretation of the statue [2:38d-43] is demarcated by a reference to the head of gold
[2:38d], then another kingdom [2:39a], then a third, bronze, kingdom [2:39b-c]. The fourth kingdom
dominates the remainder of the paragraph.

The fourth kingdom unit is structured in two parts. First, the fourth kingdom is extolled for its
power [2:40a-c]. But, second, a series of reminders back referencing the mixture of iron and clay that
composed the feet of the statue serve to demarcate three weaknesses of the fourth kingdom [2:41a-43d].

The first weakness is the fact that this fourth kingdom is a divided kingdom [2:41a-d]. The
second weakness rests with the fact that this fourth kingdom is a fragile kingdom [2:42a-c]. Finally, the
third weakness lies in the fact that this fourth kingdom is the victim of its political intrigues [2:43a-d].

Genre

As already noted above, this paragraph is the opening portion of Daniels dream interpretation.
Here, Daniel intends to unpack the meaning of the content of the dream for the dreamer. The question is:
What does Nebuchadnezzar hope that Daniel can accomplish?

At the very least, there are two immediate outcomes that Nebuchadnezzar, as a resident of a
society that practices dream interpretation, hopes to accomplish: [1] understand the symbols and [2]
dissolve any evil implications of the mystery attached to the dream.
620

The second point may help clarify the kings response when Daniel is finished. Surprisingly, the
word concerning the stone that crushes every form of political rule and reign does not seem to impress the
king much. He hears it, understands it, and seems relieved that this stone, whatever it means, means
nothing for him. Nebuchadnezzar will live out his kingdom and be replaced in due course [Daniel 2:38d-
39a]. Thus, as far as Nebuchadnezzar is concerned, there are no particular evil implications for him, so he
lavishly rewards Daniel [2:48-49]. The upshot is that Nebuchadnezzar gets out of the interpretation what
he hoped for.

620
For an elaboration of these objectives among those who had dreams interpreted for them, see
Oppenheim, 218-25.

[102]

Honorific focusing on Nebuchadnezzar, 2:36-38

Daniel 2:36a This the dream is the first sentence in Daniel 2:36. It is a noun clause and is
punctuated with a z~qf q~tn, signaling a slight pause in the reading of the line.

Daniel 2:36b now, its interpretation we declare in the presence of the king is the final utterance
in Daniel 2:36.

Grammar: the line opens with the direct object of the main verb its interpretation followed by
the main verb we declare and a final prepositional phrase in the presence of the king.
621

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:36b is to continue the dream interpretation.

The use of the plural in the main verb wedeclare is somewhat surprising. Slotki remarks that
the plural refers to Daniel and the wisdom that was given to him.
622
In a similar way, Montgomery notes
that the plural is a mark of Daniels humility; the present message was not Daniels own.
623
Ultimately,
Nebuchadnezzar will acknowledge both the Divine and the human element in this interpretation [Daniel
2:47].

Daniel 2:37a You, O King King of kings is a line that is punctuated with an àtnach, pointing to
the main break in the reading of the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:37a is a nominal clause with a subject You and an appositional honorific
O, King followed by the predicate element King of kings.

Syntax: the function of Daniel 2:37a is to acknowledge the kings royalty.
624

The function of the genitive [King of kings] is to rhetorically underline the superlative associated
with the kings royalty.
625
To be sure, King of kings comes from the political and legal administrative
language of Persia.
626

Daniel does not scruple against recognizing the king in terms of his political and royal titles. As
we noted in chapter one, the book of Daniel presents its main characters as amenable to accommodating
themselves to their culture. It seems that we have the same adaptation here. For the moment, Daniel
acclimates himself to political correctness in order to make a set of larger points to the king. The upshot is
that for the sake of a greater good, the faithful witness must know when to adjust to ones culture.

621
The direct object is ~/its interpretation [noun, ms, sg, construct with a 3
rd
, ms, suffix];
the main verb is ../we declare [Peal, imperfect, 1
st
, common, pl].

622
Slotki, 17.

623
Montgomery, 171.

624
See KB
2
, 1917r.

625
Bauer-Leander 89 i.

626
Rosenthal 189.

[103]

Daniel 2:37b to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, the strength, and
the imperial honor is the final sentence in Daniel 2:37.

Grammar: Daniel 2:37b opens with the relative marker to whom followed by the subject of
the sentence the God of heaven then the four direct objects of the main verb the kingdom, the power,
the strength, and the imperial honor and finally the main verb has given.
627

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:37b is to serve as a relative clause to connect the
assertions in 2:37b to Nebuchadnezzar, mentioned in 2:37a.
628
As a witness to the God of heaven, Daniel
wastes little time in making use of his aforementioned acclimation to his culture.

The genitive the God of heaven may be a bit difficult to pin down. The best bet is to read the
genitive as a state proposition, which in effect communicates a relationship.
629
Beyond that, it seems best
to read the genitive the God of heaven as pinning down a location.
630
The God who is in heaven is
information that the polytheistic Nebuchadnezzar would need to hear. Indeed, the kings top advisors, who
failed to connect with the astral deities with whom Nebuchadnezzar was familiar, had already damaged the
clout of these deities. Now, Daniel is seeing to it that Nebuchadnezzar hears some truth: the God who is in
heaven.

The perfect aspect of the verb is probably a resultative perfect,
631
which points to a subsequent
state of affairs over time. The net effect is that the kingdom, power, strength, and honor that
Nebuchadnezzar enjoys are all derivative from the God of heaven.

Lexical: the principle actor in the line is the God of heaven. For our purposes, it is important to
note that this precise collocation the God of heaven also appears in Daniel 2:18. At that moment,
Daniel and his comrades appealed to the God of heaven to reveal to them the mysteries of
Nebuchadnezzars dream. Accordingly, the God of heaven disclosed to Daniel the content and
interpretation of the dream [2:19]. At that point, Daniel launched into the hymn of praise to Yahwehs
wisdom and power [2:20-22], including Yahwehs power to remove kings and establish them. Now, in this
context, removal will be portrayed in Daniel 2:38-43; establishment will be promised in Daniel 2:44a. The
point is this: The reference to the God of heaven is Daniels way of telling the reader that his interpretation
is teasing out the implications of the great hymn of praise to Yahwehs wisdom and power [Daniel 2:18,
20-22]. The reader might weigh and consider the references to the cavalcade of new kingdoms in Daniel
2:38-43 as evidence of Yahwehs power to remove and establish political power-players, as opposed to
attempting to pin names and dates on those kings and reigns. The trees are one thing; the forest is
something else again.

The principle activity in Daniel 2:37b is Yahwehs giving [y
e
hab] this royal rule to
Nebuchadnezzar. As noted above, whatever trappings of royalty Nebuchadnezzar enjoys, they are a
byproduct of Yahwehs doing.

627
The subject of Daniel 2:37b is ./heaven [definite article, noun, ms, pl] ~-./the
God of [noun, ms, sg, construct]; the four direct objects are .--/the kingdom [definite article,
noun, fm, sg], ..W/the power [definite article, noun, ms, sg], ./the strength [definite
article, noun, ms, sg], and ./and the imperial honor [definite article, noun, ms, sg]; the main
verb is >~/has given [Peal, perfect, 3
rd
, ms, sg].

628
On the relative clause, see Rosenthal 36; Bauer-Leander 108 k.

629
On the genitive as a state proposition, see Beekman and Callow, 251.

630
Ibid., 255.

631
Bauer-Leander 79 c; for the Hebrew aspect of the perfect, see IBHS, 30.5.2b.

[104]

The Aramaic verb has given [y
e
hab] may be translated to give.
632
The Septuagint translator
uses a verb [didmi] best translated to grant, assign, or provide.
633
The upshot is this: Nebuchadnezzar
owed all his territory and authority over man and beast to the God of heaven who had given him these
honors.
634

There are subsequent uses of this verb [y
e
hab] that are revealing. Some of them relate to
Nebuchadnezzar, others to One like a Son of Man, and yet another pericope connects y
e
hab to the Holy
people of God. As we shall note, the objects that are given [y
e
hab] are similar; only the class of recipients
and the duration of the gifts differ.

As far as Nebuchadnezzar is concerned, he is given [y
e
hab] the following honors:

Daniel 2 Daniel 5

Sovereignty/kingdom [malk| (2:37)] Sovereignty/kingdom [malk| (5:18)]
Power [ch~san (2:37)] Greatness [r
e
b| (5:18)]
Strength [t
e
qp (2:37)] Glory/honor [y
e
q~r (5:18)]
Glory/honor [y
e
q~r (2:37)] Majesty [h,dar (5:18)]

Turning to One like a Son of Man, he is given [y
e
hab] the following honors:

Dominion [shol~n (7:14)]
Glory/honor [y
e
q~r (7:14)]
Sovereignty/kingdom [malk| (7:14)]

Then, considering the honors that are given [y
e
hab] to the People of the Holy One:

Sovereignty/kingdom [malk| (7:27)]
Dominion [shol~n (7:27)]
Greatness [r
e
b| (7:27)]

Putting all of this together, there would appear to be patterns in history. First, the panoply of
honors that are given [y
e
hab] to military-political power-players, like Nebuchadnezzar, are destined to be
forfeited by them and given [y
e
hab] to One like a Son of Man and the People of the Holy One. But, more
importantly, the honors that are given to political leaders are destined to fade and be passed along to other
regimes. Indeed, this handing of the baton of power is a point made in Daniel 2:37-43. However, the
assortment of honors that are given [y
e
hab] to One like a Son of Man remain with Him everlastingly [7:14].
Similarly, the array of honors that are given [y
e
hab] to the People of the Holy One is also everlasting [7:27].

What the reader of this second chapter of Daniel should weigh and consider is the proposition that
Daniels affirmation in 2:20-21 concerning Yahwehs sovereignty over human history will play out along
the lines indicated in the charts above. From Daniel 2 to Daniel 5 to Daniel 7, Yahweh bestows power
where, when, with whom, and for however long He wishes. The Book of Daniel will show us, as Daniel
2:20-21 makes abundantly clear, that human history is the jurisdiction of Yahweh.

There is certainly hope for those who live and labor within Yahwehs precincts. For now, the
worlds political power-players are drunk on the narcotic of their own might. Fair enough; but Daniel 2
reveals an outcome, a reckoning, an aftermath that will prevail. That is our solid hope!

632
KB
2
, 1889r; BDB, 1095r.

633
LSJ, 422.

634
Baldwin, 92-93.

[105]

The principle honors that Yahweh bestows on Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2:37are: [1]
Sovereignty/kingdom [malk| ], [2] power [ch~san], [3] strength [t
e
qp], and [4] glory/honor [y
e
q~r].

[1] Yahweh confers upon Nebuchadnezzar his sovereignty [malk| ]. Sovereignty [malk| ]
probably points to both the sovereign authority exercised by Nebuchadnezzar as well as the organized
kingdom within which he exercised this authority.
635
It is both his authority and his administration.

This sovereignty [malk| ] may be read in Daniel 2:37b in the sense of the office of ruling.
636
The
noun lifts out the activity of ruling, the institution or functional system of rule.
637
The upshot is that the
sovereignty [malk| ] amounts to the office of being king. And, this office was granted by Yahweh.

[2] Yahweh also grants Nebuchadnezzar his power [ch~san]. The power [ch~san] that is referred
to suggests force and/or strength.
638
In Egyptian and Imperial Aramaic, the root [chsn] refers to force.
639
In
Syriac, a cognate [chusn~] depicts bravery.
640
The term [ch~san] is also used by Nebuchadnezzar himself,
referencing his mighty strength that built Babylon the Great [Daniel 4:30]. BDB glosses power [ch~san] in
the sense of royal power.
641
There is a verbal form of the root [ch,sn], which BDB renders to take
possession of.
642
BDB also cites Syriac cognates of this verb that mean to overpower.
643

The power [ch~san] that Yahweh grants Nebuchadnezzar is the kings royal power or, better yet,
the power associated with human achievement.
644
We gain an insight into how Nebuchadnezzar overrates
his power [ch~san] in Daniel 4:30. That is, as far as the king is concerned, Babylon the Great was built
with his power [ch~san], sheer brute force, the trust the king put in his own human might. Still, even this
power was on loan from Yahweh.

[3] Yahweh also bestows on the king is strength [t
e
qp].
645
Beginning with the noun in Daniel
2:37b [t
e
qp], there are Ancient Near Eastern cognates. The Imperial Aramaic and Nabataean cognates

635
See KB
2
, 1917r; Rosenthal, 89; and BDB, 1100r.

636
See Philip J. Nel, -, in NIDOTTE [H4887].

637
Ibid.

638
Bauer-Leander 51 f.

639
KB
2
, 1878.

640
Ibid.

641
BDB, 1093.

642
Ibid.

643
Ibid.

644
For this nuance, see Robin Wakely, W, in NIDOTTE [H2891].

645
The strength [t
e
qp] that is referred to is a bit tricky to pin down. The Aramaic form is
dubious, but if it is read as written [t
e
qp], then it appears only here in Daniel. There is another nominal
form [t
e
q~p (Daniel 4:30)] and a verbal form [t
e
qp (Daniel 4:8, 17, 19; 5:20; 6:8)]. There are Hebrew
cognates. There is a verbal form [t~qp(Job 14:20; 15:24; Ecclesiastes 4:12; 6:10)], used only in the Qal in
the Hebrew Bible, and a nominal form [tqep (Esther 9:29; 10:2; Daniel 11:17)]. There is also an
adjective [taqqTp (Ecclesiastes 6:10)].


[106]

consist of adjectival and nominal forms that mean lawful, legitimate, authentic, legal authority.
646
In the
context of Daniel 2:37b, it is difficult to see how this is of much help. Elsewhere, the ANE cognates of this
specific noun [t
e
qp] feature a Jewish Aramaic cognate that means power or strength, and a Syriac cognate
that is translated might.
647

There is a second Aramaic nominal form [t
e
q~p] used in Daniel 4:30. Daniel 4:30 is part of
Nebuchadnezzars soliloquy to his greatness [Daniel 4:29-30]. Walking on the roof of the royal palace in
Babylon, the king was moved to reflect in 4:30: Is this not Babylon the Great that I have built as a royal
residence, by the strength [t
e
q~p] of my royal power and for the honor of my majesty?

By the strength [t
e
q~p] of my royal power [ch~san] is a genitive construction. In all likelihood, the
writer intends a genitive of association.
648
The sense becomes: The strength associated with my royal
power. To put the same thing the other way around: Nebuchadnezzars royal power [ch~san] is the creator
of his strength [t
e
q~p]. The kings strength [t
e
q~p] is the showcase of his royal power [ch~san], the clout
and muscle the world sees and has to deal with.

Of the verbal forms of this root [t
e
qp], Daniel 5:20 may be the most helpful. In Daniel 5:18-20,
Daniel rehearses the history of Nebuchadnezzar for Belshazzar. In Daniel 5:18, Daniel reviews the honors
that Yahweh bestowed on him: Royal power, importance, honor, and majesty. As a result, Nebuchadnezzar
was a man to be greatly feared, holding the power of death and life [5:19]. Then, in Daniel 5:20, Daniel
offers Belshazzar the benefit of Daniels insight into the heart and spirit of Nebuchadnezzar. Specifically,
Daniel evaluates Nebuchadnezzar as a man whose spirit was hardened [t
e
qp] into pride. Literally, the
clause reads: His spirit was strengthened into [t
e
qp] pride. Nebuchadnezzar was thoroughly confirmed
[t
e
qp] in presumptuous behavior; his was an overbearing spirit that was toughened and unyielding [t
e
qp]
in its pride. In a nutshell, the king was hard-boiled and casehardened [t
e
qp] into pride.

Our review of the Aramaic terms for strength [t
e
qp] in Daniel 2:37b has born some fruit.
Nebuchadnezzars strength [t
e
qp] arises from the force of his royal power [ch~san]. Indeed, his strength
[t
e
qp] is the public face of his power. But, this also was a bestowal from Yahweh. If Nebuchadnezzars
word was law, if his royal power lent authority to his every word and whim, then this too was owing to the
aegis of Yahweh.
649

[4] Yahweh also provides Nebuchadnezzar with his imperial honor [y
e
q~r]. This Aramaic term
points to the royal majesty attached to imperial honor. The noun is often translated esteem or dignity;
650
as
well as honor and majesty.
651
Used of political rulers in the sense of royal worth, the noun describes
Nebuchadnezzar [2:37; 4:30, 36] and Belshazzar [5:18, 20]. However, as noted above, imperial honor
[y
e
q~r] is one of the honors shifted from its political-military realm to that of One like a Son of Man [7:14].

646
KB
2
, 2009.

647
Ibid.

648
Bauer-Leander 89 a.

649
The reader will surely wonder what in the world God is up to! The reader may take it on faith
that Yahweh establishes kings and deposes them [Daniel 2:21]. So, if Yahweh established a man like
Nebuchadnezzar, a man who would eventually succumb to the power of his own hubris, what is God up to?
The writer of Daniel has shaped an interesting conundrum for the reader: Would Yahweh really establish
a man like Nebuchadnezzar, and then men like Hitler, or Mussolini, or Stalin? We shall see.

650
KB
2
, 1893r.

651
Holladay, 408r; BDB, 1096r.

[107]

In the case of imperial honor, the reader is entitled to conclude that imperial honor [y
e
q~r] is a
Divine bestowal that is only on loan. Men like Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar may drape themselves in
splendor and magnificence; observers may fawn over their stateliness and grandeur. But, in the final
analysis, there will be Another who will assume this imperial honor, never to relinquish it [Daniel 7:14].
This transference is also part of the hope that is the Book of Daniel.

Daniel 2:38a and wherever the sons of men dwell, beasts of the field or birds of the air, He has
given into your power is a sentence that is punctuated with a z~qf q~tn, indicating a short pause in the

Grammar: Daniel 2:38a opens with the relative marker and wherever followed by the main
verb in the relative clause dwell with the subjects of the verb sons of men, beasts of the field or birds
of the air concluding with the main verb in the sentence He has given with a prepositional phrase
into your power.
652

Syntax: the syntactical function of the relative clause is to indicate the inclusive scope of
Nebuchadnezzars conferred rule.
653
The sense of the relative clause is probably something like: in the
entire known world.

As in Daniel 2:37, so here, the perfect aspect of the verb He has given is a resultative perfect,
pointing to a resultant state of affairs ongoing over time.
654

Lexical: the breadth of Nebuchadnezzars rule is articulated in terms of [1] the sons of men, [2]
beasts of the field, and [3] birds of the air; the basis of Nebuchadnezzars rule is expressed in terms of [4]
He has given
655
[5] into your power.

In terms of the Book of Daniel, the breadth of Nebuchadnezzars rule as written here prepares the
reader for the same language later in the book. That is, [1] the sons of men appear in Daniel 5:21 in the
rehearsal of Nebuchadnezzars inglorious fall from majesty as orchestrated by Yahweh. The same may be
said for [2] beasts of the field, and [3] birds of the air, both of which appear in Daniel 4:12, 21.

The references to beasts of the field and birds of the air are reminiscent of the Creation account in
Genesis. The phrase birds of the air appears in Genesis 2:19, as does beasts of the field. However, there is
no specific appearance of the phrase sons of men in the Creation account. At the same time, the references
to humanity, wild life and fowl do suggest that Nebuchadnezzar is exercising his dominion mandate as
extended to mankind by God in Genesis 1:26, 28. As Montgomery puts it, Nebuchadnezzar is the type
and crown of Man (who) has been invested by God with mans charter of dominion over all living
creatures.
656

652
The marker of the relative clause is -->/wherever; the main verb in the relative
clause is /dwell [Peal, participle, ms, pl]; the subject of the main verb in the relative clause is
.../men [definite article, noun, ms, sg].>/sons of [noun, ms, pl, construct]; finally, the
main verb in the sentence is >~/He has given [Peal, perfect, 3
rd
, ms].

653
On the function of the relative marker [-->] in the sense of wherever, see
Bauer-Leander 112 c, who paraphrases in the entire known world.

654
Bauer-Leander 79 c.

655
See the notes on He has given in Daniel 2:37.

656
Montgomery, 173.

[108]

Daniel 2:38b So, He has caused you to rule all of it is punctuated with an àtnach, signaling the
major break in the reading of the line. The honorific is now concluded and the interpretation begins in
2:38c.

Grammar: Daniel 2:38b opens with the main verb so, He has caused you to rule followed by
a prepositional phrase all of it.
657

Syntax: the sentence seems to function as a kind of summary of Daniel 2:37-38b. In any event,
the Haphel stem of the verb signals active causation.
658
The sense is: Yahweh has caused Nebuchadnezzar
to act as a ruler over Babylon.

Lexical: the sense of the main verb [sh
e
l] rule points to active causation on Yahwehs part,
leading to Nebuchadnezzars rule. To put the same thing another way, the assertion in Daniel 2:38b is a
sequel to Daniel 2:20-21.

This is the first appearance of the verb in the Aramaic section of Daniel.
659
Essentially, the verb
means to be ruler over or to be master over.
660
The verb carries the same meanings in other ANE cognates.
Interestingly, there is a Syriac cognate that means to suppress.
661
There is also a Hebrew cognate [~la]
that is spelled with the same consonants. The sense of this term is to have power, to exert force, or to
dominate.
662
There is an Akkadian cognate that means to be in control of or to have at ones disposal.
663

An Ethiopian cognate means to use force, and the Arabic cognate means to prevail, to possess the power of
dominion, or to let someone have power.
664
The upshot is that, as far as the Aramaic/Hebrew term is
concerned, rule implies that Nebuchadnezzar has mastery over the domains of men and beasts. He can
exert force and dominate.

Theodotion in his Greek translation has katestsen se kurion [He has set you in charge as
authority].

Finally, the reader may wonder at the accuracy of Daniels statement that Nebuchadnezzar rules
wherever the sons of men dwell. Montgomery cites Assyrian texts to the effect that these kings actually
thought of themselves in these terms.
665
Daniel is, more than likely, accommodating himself to the king by
speaking in language the king would readily understand.

657
The main verb is -~/so, He has caused you to rule [Haphel, perfect, 3
rd
, ms, sg,
with a 2
nd
, ms, sg, suffix].

658
Rosenthal 99; Van Pelt, 143; Bauer-Leander 76 i.

659
Daniel 2:38-39, 48; 3:27; 5:7, 16; 6:25.

660
KB
2
, 1995r.

661
Ibid.

662
Ibid., 1521.

663
Ibid.

664
Ibid.

665
Montgomery, 173.

[109]

Interpretation of the statue, 2:38d-43

The head of gold [2:38d]

Daniel 2:38d You the head of gold is the final sentence in Daniel 2:38. There is a slight break in
the reading of the line after the subject You.

Grammar: Daniel 2:38d is a nominal clause. The clause opens with the subject You and
closes with the predicate the head of gold.
666

Syntax: The subject element of the nominal clause is itself a nominal clause: You [are] it. In and
of itself, the subject element of Daniel 2:38d uses the third person personal pronoun [it] to express
predication [to be].
667
This may explain the punctuation with a slight break indicated after you [are] it. The
upshot is that this complicated construction is a way of emphasizing the subject.
668

The second person personal pronoun You [ant] is also used as the first word of Daniel 2:37a
You [ant], O King King of kings, to whom Yahweh had given the kingdom [malk|]. This observation
may help in pinpointing the connection Daniel is making. That is, You [ant] in Daniel 2:38d back
references the same pronoun in Daniel 2:37a, both identifying the kingdom [malk|] of Nebuchadnezzar, not
the man himself. Indeed, each of the subsequent interpretations of the statue is identified as a kingdom
[malk|].

So, the upshot is this: The head of gold is the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon.

The second inferior kingdom [2:39a]

Daniel 2:39a After you, another kingdom will arise inferior to yours is a sentence that is
punctuated with an àtnach, locating the major pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:39a opens with a temporal marker after you followed by the main verb
will arise and then the subject of the verb another kingdom followed by an appositional component
inferior to yours.
669

Syntax: clearly, the syntactical function of Daniel 2:39a is to signal a temporal event following
the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar. The temporal marker [b~t,r] may be glossed after; with the preposition,
a literal translation would be in the tracks of.
670
Montgomery affirms that the sense of the temporal marker
is more along the lines of the literal sense in your place.
671
The upshot is that there is nothing in this

666
The subject of the noun clause is .~/it [personal pronoun, 3
rd
, ms, sg]../you
[personal pronoun, 2
nd
, ms, sg], literally you [are] it; the predicate element is .>~/gold [definite
article, noun, ms, sg] /of [genitive marker] ~./head [noun, ms, sg].

667
Van Pelt, 56; Rosenthal 30; Bauer-Leander 72 d.

668
Bauer-Leander 72 a; KB
2
, 1858r.

669
The temporal marker is >/after you [conjunction, preposition (>), prefixed to a
particle with a 2
nd
, ms, sg, suffix]; the main verb is /will arise [Peal, imperfect, 3
rd
, fm, sg]; the
subject of the verb with modifier is W./another [adjective, fm, sg] --/kingdom [noun, fm,
sg]; and the appositional element is ./to yours [preposition with a 2
nd
, ms, sg, suffix]
../inferior [noun, fm, sg].

670
Rosenthal 84; so also Bauer-Leander 69 k; KB
2
, 1831r.

671
Montgomery, 175.

[110]

temporal marker to specify when this following kingdom emerges. Is the sense immediately after? Or is the
idea more at some point down the line? The truth is that there is no way to tell. We are left with an open-
ended time frame: in your place or in your tracks.

The interpreter qualifies this future kingdom by saying that it will be inferior [
a
ra!] to you,
Nebuchadnezzars kingdom. The term is best translated below or underneath,
672
in the sense of inferior
to.
673

The fact of the matter is that we are not told precisely how this subsequent kingdom is inferior.
There has been much speculation along the lines of inferior in political power or morality, but the fact is
Daniel simply does not tell us.

What the interpreter does tell us is that over time kingdoms [political-military powers] become
inferior; they get worse. Indeed, the fourth kingdom has several short-comings that are specifically
outlined by Daniel. Longman summarizes the decline motif that is represented in the interpretation: While
humans operate on the idea that we get better and stronger with time, Gods vision undercuts our
understanding, informing us that the opposite is true.
674

The reader of Daniels interpretation would do well to bear in mind this across-the-board
perspective. On the one hand, there will be kingdoms, like the first and the third, which are more or less
successful, at least as far as the might makes right crowd defines success. On the other hand, the fact is
that human governance will tend to deteriorate; there are patterns in history. The mechanisms of this
deterioration are less important than the synopsis: Human governance will degenerate into crisis upon
crisis, and this also occurs under the aegis of God. To be sure, all of them are destined to collide with the
stone, a collision none of them survives. This is one of thepatterns in history.
675

The third, bronze, kingdom [2:39b-c]

Daniel 2:39b then, another, a third kingdom of bronze is a line that is punctuated with a z~qf
q~tn, indicating a brief pause in the reading of the sentence.

Grammar: Daniel 2:39b opens with the subject a third kingdom followed by the adjective
another and wrapped up with a genitive modifier of bronze.

Daniel 2:39c which will dominate all the earth is the final utterance in Daniel 2:39.

Grammar: the line opens with the mark of a relative clause which followed by the verb will
dominate followed by a prepositional phrase over all the earth.
676

672
Rosenthal 88 (4); Bauer-Leander 68 o.

673
KB
2
, 1826r; BDB, 1083r; Holladay, 398r.

674
Longman, 82.

675
As I write this in November of 2013, there are Christian communities and individual Christians
who are suffering at the hands of political-military despots, like Nebuchadnezzar and Antiochus Epiphanes
[who will figure into Daniel 11 in a big way]. For now, it is imperative that the Christian reader, suffering
under the iron fist of tyrannical rule, steer the course in faith and hope. There is a day of reckoning that
will not be impeded, a day that may come in this life, as it did for Antiochus [as we shall see]. It is my
heartfelt desire that persecuted Christians will take hope in the explication of human governance offered in
Daniel 2.

676
The main verb is -/will dominate [Peal, imperfect, 3
rd
, fm, sg].

[111]

Syntax: Daniel 2:39b functions syntactically as a relative clause, offering the reader more
involved interpretative data regarding this third kingdom.

The imperfect aspect of the main verb will dominate is probably a simple future.
677
Again, we
are not told when; we are simply told that at some point in the future this bronze kingdom will emerge and
dominate.

The prepositional phrase over all the earth communicates the whole of something.
Specifically, when the prepositional component over all [b
e
kl] precedes a noun with a definite article
theearth the net effect is to communicate universality.
678

As with the universal rule, or the lack of it, of Nebuchadnezzar [Daniel 2:38b], we are left with the
same conundrum in terms of this third, bronze, kingdom. Here in 2:39b as well as in 2:38b, we may have
Daniel speaking in the kind of grandiose language common among political-military leaders of the era.

At the same time, this may be Daniels way of telling us that, as a pattern in history, world-wide
political power-players will surface from time to time.

The fourth kingdom [2:40-43]

Strength [2:40]

Daniel 2:40a Then, a fourth kingdom will come into being, strong as iron is a line that is
punctuated with an àtnach, indicating the major break in the reading of the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:40a opens with the subject of the line a fourth kingdom then the verb
will come into being followed by an appositional modifier strong with a prepositional phrase as
iron.
679

Lexical: clearly, Daniel intends to point to the strength of this kingdom before he unpacks it
vulnerabilities. The point should not be missed that even those kingdoms that wear the iron glove have feet
of clay.

The adjective strong [taqqTp] underlines the unyielding character of this iron kingdom. Robin
Wakely notes that this Aramaic adjective may describe what is hard, stern, or severe.
680
KoNhler-
Baumgartner translate the adjective with strong or impressive.
681
In this context, the adjective describes the
kind of strength [taqqTp] that is utterly overpowering [2:40b]. The strength [taqqTp] of this kingdom is
beyond successfully resisting.

For the sense of iron, see the notes on Daniel 2:33a.

677
Bauer-Leander 78 f; for lexical data on this verb, see - in Daniel 2:38b.

678
KB
2
, 1898r.

679
The main verb is .~/will come into being [Peal, imperfect, 3
rd
, fm, sg]; the adjectival
modifier is ~/strong [adjective, fm, sg]; and the prepositional phrase is .--/like iron
[preposition (-), definite article, noun, ms, sg].

680
Robin Wakely, _, in NIDOTTE [H9548].

681
KB
2
, 2008.

[112]

Daniel 2:40b because, as iron smashes or subdues everything is a line that is punctuated with a
z~qf q~tn, pointing to the last pause before the end of the sentence.

Grammar: Daniel 2:40b opens with a subordinating conjunction because followed by the
subject of the subordinate clause iron followed by the verbs smashes or subdues then the direct
object everything.
682

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:40b is to tease out a key quality of iron, a
characteristic that corresponds to this fourth kingdom.
683

The syntax of the participles smashes or subdues probably signals traits that are typical of iron,
therefore, typical of this fourth kingdom.
684

The Haphel stem of the first participle is causative.
685
The causative nuance helps the reader
grasp the basis of the pulverizing action of the iron statue.

Lexical: the two verbs in the line serve together to rhetorically underline the overpowering force
of this fourth kingdom.

The first of the participles smashes [d
e
qaq] points to a kind of power that fully pulverizes. We
have already met this verb in Daniel 2:34-35. There, as well as here, the action portrayed is to crush or to
grind up fine;
686
or to break into pieces;
687
or even more graphically, to pulverize.
688
Indeed, as used in
Daniel 2:34-35, the smashing is so thorough that the odds and ends are left for the wind to blow away.

The second of the participles subdues [ch,al] points to a kind of power that wholly conquers.
This is the only use of the verb in the Aramaic of Daniel. The Ancient Near Eastern cognates are
somewhat diverse. That is, there is an Akkadian cognate that means to crush or destroy.
689
At the same
time, there is an Arabic cognate that means to push or to repudiate, and a Syriac cognate that means to
forge a metal.
690

Theodotion in his Greek translation goes with damaz, a verb that means in Classical Greek to
subdue, to conquer, or to gain mastery over; the verb can also mean to lay low or to kill.
691

682
The subordinating conjunction is ->--/because or forasmuch as; the two
verbs are participles: -W/and shatters [Peal, participle, ms, sg] and ~/smashes [Haphel,
participle, ms, sg].

683
For this sense of ->--/because or forasmuch as, see Bauer-Leander 69 q.

684
See Rosenthal 177 and Bauer-Leander 81 d; for the waw in the sense of or, see Bauer-
Leander 96 i.

685

686
KB
2
, 1855.

687
BDB, 1089.

688
Holladay, 403.

689
KB
2
, 1881.

690
Ibid.

691
LSJ, 368.

[113]

The correspondence between iron and this fourth kingdom is twofold. Like iron which can
pulverize or forge metal, this fourth kingdom can either thrash to the point of extinction, or bend its foes to
its will. What is doesnt destroy it enslaves.

Daniel 2:40c so, like iron that crushes, it will smash or subdue all of these is the final utterance
of Daniel 2:40. The Septuagint tradition omits the first part of the line so, like iron that crushes. A
footnote in BHS affirms that this line was added. Montgomery accepts the omission based on [1]
redundancy and [2] the compactness of the narrative.
692
However, in the Dead Sea Scrolls [4QDan
2:40
], the
phrase is found. Accordingly, we see no reason to delete it.

Grammar: Daniel 2:40c opens with a prepositional phrase so, like iron followed by a relative
clause that crushes then, we have the direct object of the two finite verbs all of these and finally the
two finite verbs it will smash or subdue.
693

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:40c is to summarize the force and impact of this
fourth kingdom.
694

Both of the finite verbs are third person, feminine, verbs. This would seem to require a feminine
subject, and the nearest candidate in the verse is kingdom [malk|, noun, feminine, singular]. The net effect
is that this fourth kingdom [malk|, noun, feminine, singular] will smash [Aphel, imperfect, 3
rd
, feminine,
singular] or subdue [Peal, imperfect, 3
rd
, feminine, singular] all of these.

The referent of the demonstrative pronoun these is hard to pin down. The gender of this
particular demonstrative pronoun may be either masculine or feminine, so gender doesnt help us much.
But, given the observation above, the referent would seem to be kingdoms.

The question now becomes: Is the referent these specific kingdoms or kingdoms in general? The
problem with reading the referent in terms of specific kingdoms represented by the various metals in the
statue is that linking specific kingdoms to specific metals in the statue is a dicey task at best. Two views
have dominated a Roman view and a Greek view
695
but no consensus has emerged. The reader is left to
draw his/her own conclusions. The view adopted by the Guidebook is that Daniel does not intend to
correlate each part of the statue with a specific empire. Rather, there is a more broad-spectrum pattern
emerging here, a pattern that displays the sovereignty of Yahweh over human history [per Daniel 2:20-21].
In this sense, then, the referent to the demonstrative pronouns these is a broad reference to kingdoms
like these. The point that Daniel intends to make is that world empires will emerge in history that outright
dominate the world scene. What is more, the comprehensive point is even these have their vulnerabilities
and even these will not survive their encounter with the stone.

692
Montgomery, 175; also Hartman and Di Lella, 141; Goldingay, 35.

693
The prepositional phrase is .--/so, like the iron [conjunction, preposition (-),
definite article, noun, ms, sg]; the relative clause is /crushes [Pael, participle, ms,
sg]/that [relative marker]; the direct object of the finite verbs is -./these [pronoun,
pl]--/all of [noun, ms, sg, construct]; and the two finite verbs are /or subdue [Peal,
imperfect, 3
rd
, fm, sg] and /it will smash [Aphel, imperfect, 3
rd
, fm, sg].

694
On the explanatory use of the conjunction [waw], see Bauer-Leander 70 r.

695
Essentially, the Roman view is that [1] the head of Gold is Babylon, [2] the Silver is the Medo-
Persian empire, [3] the Bronze is the Greek empire, and [4] the Iron is the Roman empire. The Greek view
is that [1] the Gold is the Babylonian empire, [2] the Silver is the Median empire, [3] the Bronze is the
Persian empire, and [4] the Iron is the Greek empire. For the details, see Longman, 81 and Baldwin, 161 ff.

[114]

Lexical: of lexical interest is the new verb used to depict the force and violence of this fourth
kingdom crushes [r
e!
a
!
]. BDB glosses to shatter
696
and Bauer-Leander goes with to smash to pieces.
697

Rosenthal opts for to break.
698

The reader will note that three terms are used to depict the power and force of this fourth kingdom:
Smash [d
e
qaq], subdue [ch,al], and crush [r
e!
a
!
]. The first depicts the kind of force that simply cannot be
resisted, leaving only destruction in its wake; the second portrays the kind of power that forces one nation
to bend to the will of another; and the third seems to point to the power to inflict overwhelming defeat.

Taken together, the reader may infer from this language that Daniel intends to tell
Nebuchadnezzar, and us, that there will be nations with this quality of might that will appear on the world
scene. In the context of Daniel 2:20-21, these kingdoms will emerge in Gods timing and for His purposes.
Beyond this, these three power terms are piled up only to be counterbalanced by the three points of
vulnerability that will emerge presently. Finally, even this degree of virtually insurmountable power is no
match for the stone. As we shall see, the stone will completely annihilate these kingdoms, the invincible
and the vulnerable alike.

Divided [2:41]

Daniel 2:41a Now, just as you saw the feet and the toes is a line that is punctuated with a rebT
a
,
signaling a minor pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:41a opens with a relative marker now, just as followed by the main verb
you saw and the two direct objects the feet and the toes.
699

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:41a is to present the king with the basis for Daniels
assertion that this fourth kingdom will be divided.
700
The rationale for the assertion that this kingdom,
powerful as it may be, is in fact a house divided is what Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream [2:41a].

The reader will note that back references to the content of the dream vis--vis the composite
makeup of the feet and toes structures Daniel 2:41-43. In Daniel 2:41, we have: You saw the feet and the
toes, partly of clay and partly of iron [2:41a-b]. In Daniel 2:42, we have: As the toes of the feet were partly
iron and partly clay [2:42a]. Then, in Daniel 2:43, there is: You saw iron mixed together with clay [2:43a].
By these back references, Daniel intends to tease out the three implications of this composite makeup.

Daniel 2:41b partly of clay and partly of iron is a line that is punctuated with a z,qf q,tn,
indicating a brief pause in the reading of the line.

The line opens with a particle partly of followed by the first component in the partitive
construction of clay with a repetition of the particle and partly of with the second component in the
partitive construction iron.
701

696
BDB, 1113r.

697
Bauer-Leander 40 g.

698
Rosenthal, 97.

699
The main verb is ~WW/you saw [Peal, perfect, 2
nd
, ms].

700
For the causal sense of the relative [], see Bauer-Leander 70 g; KB
2
, 1851r, glosses
our passage with whereas or forasmuch as.

701
The partitive is ./and partly of [particle] ~./partly of [particle].

[115]

Syntax: the line is syntactically dominated by the partitive construction partly of partly of.
The particle [mTnnhn] is used in a partitive sense to communicate the fact that the base of this statue is
composite.
702
The base is a mixture and not solid.
703

Daniel 2:41c a divided kingdom it will be is a sentence that is punctuated with a z,qf q,tn,
indicating a brief pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: the sentence opens with the predicate nominative a divided kingdom followed by
the main verb it will be.
704

Syntax: there are no connectives to relate this line to its predecessors. Therefore, the sentence has
the look of an appositional line, extending the meaning and implication of 2:41a-b.
705

The passive participle with the verb, to be [h~v~h], is a construction that signals an ongoing state
of affairs.
706
This house divided is more or less enduring; it will not, and does not, stand.

Lexical: the participle translated divided is a term that underlines that which is not in one piece;
707

it signals that which is not united.
708
This is the only appearance of the verb in the Aramaic section of the
Old Testament. There is a corresponding Hebrew term that means pretty much the same thing. The
Septuagint translators use one form or another of the word dimers, a fairly rare word that means
bipartite.
709
In general, the division implies the absence of cohesion and unity.
710
This kingdom is
internally divided and therefore vulnerable.
711

The nature of this internal disunity is not specified. The next line mentions the lack of firmness,
but this also is more a resultant quality than an originating cause. In the final analysis, the reader is simply
left in the dark as to the exact nature of the internal rift that taints this fourth kingdom. At the same time,
the reader is entitled to take note of disunity in a nation, regardless of the specific form it takes.

702
KB
2
, 1919r; BDB, 1101; Holladay, 412r; Rosenthal 80.

703
Baldwin, 93.

704
The predicate nominative is ~--/divided [Peal, passive participle, fm, sg]
--/kingdom [noun, fm, sg]; the main verb is ~~/it will be [Peal, imperfect, 3
rd
, fm, sg].

705
See Andersen, Sentence, 46; see also Gibson 146; Bauer-Leander 93.

706
Rosenthal 177.

707
KB
2
, 1956r.

708
Holladay, 417r.

709
LSJ, 431.

710

711
Goldingay, 35.


[116]

Daniel 2:41d some of the firmness like iron will be within it is a line that is punctuated with an
àtnach, which indicates the major pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:41d opens with a prepositional phrase some of the firmness followed by a
genitive modifier of iron and finishes with the verbal element will be within it.
712

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:41d is signaled by the waw prefixed to the opening
preposition. The upshot is that this conjunction indicates that Daniel 2:41d is a further explanation of the
division mentioned in Daniel 2:41c.
713

Some of [mTn] is a prepositional expression that continues the partitive idea in the previous line.
714

The base of the statue is composite, only partially suffused with the strength of iron. The reader may
assume that this partial strength of iron is the net effect of the division noted above.

Lexical: the term used here for firmness [nitsb>] is used only here in the Aramaic section of the
Old Testament. There is a Hebrew cognate that gets considerable play in the Old Testament.

The Aramaic term [nitsb>] signals hardness or firmness.
715
BDB simply goes with firmness.
716

Theodotion in his Greek translation opts for riza, a term that is normally translated root. The Greek term is
used metaphorically in the sense of foundation or a base.
717
At least the Septuagint translator comprehends
that this fourth kingdom has no roots, no discernible foundation upon which to stand.

As observed above, the fate of nations that are divided, nations that lack cohesion and unity
[Daniel 2:41c] climaxes in being vulnerable; their firmness is partial [Daniel 2:41d]. This fourth kingdom
is a composite, a mixture of might and impotence. In the context of Daniel 2, this fourth kingdom is in
sheer contrast to the next kingdom, one that will smash all others and last in perpetuity [Daniel 2:44-45].

Daniel 2:41e inasmuch as you saw iron mixed with potters clay is the final sentence in Daniel
2:41.

Grammar: Daniel 2:41e opens with a subordinating conjunction inasmuch as followed by the
main verb you saw followed by the direct object iron and concluding with a participial clause
mixed with potters clay.
718

712
The opening prepositional phrase is .>l./the firmness [definite article, noun, fm,
sg]/some of [conjunction, preposition]; the verbal element is ~>/within it [prepositional
phrase].~-/will be [Peal, imperfect, 3
rd
, ms, sg].

713
For this use of the conjunctive waw in Aramaic, see Bauer-Leander 70 r.

714
For this partial nuance in the preposition [mTn], see Rosenthal 80; KB
2
, 1919r.

715
KB
2
, 1933r; also Holladay, 414.

716
BDB, 1103.

717
LSJ, 1570.

718
The subordinating conjunction is ->--/inasmuch as; the main verb is
~W/you saw [Peal, perfect, 2
nd
, ms, sg]; and the participle is >/mixed [Pael, participle,
passive, ms, sg].

[117]

Fragile [2:42]

Daniel 2:42a As the toes and the feet partly iron and partly clay is a line that is punctuated with
an àtnach, indicating the major pause in the reading of the line.

This line is the second time that this sentence appears; it functions to identify a new weakness in
this ostensibly all-mighty kingdom.
719

Daniel 2:42b so, some of the kingdom will be strong is a sentence that is punctuated with a z~qf

Grammar: Daniel 2:42b opens with a prepositional phrase that functions to signal the composite
nature of the kingdom so, some of the object of the prepositional phrase is next the kingdom
followed by the main verb will be and the predicate adjective strong.
720

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:42b is to tease out the implications of the statement in
2:42a. Again, the composite nature of this kingdom is fronted. The opening prepositional phrase some of
signals the aggregate nature of the statue in conjunction with the opening words of Daniel 2:42c and
some of it. Read together, these two sets of opening words mean partly partly.
721
KoNhler-
Baumgartner translate the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly brittle.
722

The reader will note that the common denominator [Daniel 2:41-43] of this fourth kingdom is its
internal vulnerability owing to its composite nature. The focus in this section is the inherent core weakness
of even this fourth and most powerful nation.

Lexical: Daniel uses a slightly different term, albeit a term he has used previously [Daniel 2:40],
to communicate the power of this fourth kingdom strong [t
e
qp]. As we noted in connection with Daniel
2:40, this strength is the kind of power that is basically beyond resisting.
723
The upshot is that this strength
of this fourth kingdom is such that it can impose its will on other nations.

There is nothing in the adjective that tips off just how this nations will is imposed or where its
strength lies for that matter. But, the context of Daniel 2:40-43 does suggest military-political power. The
military superpower connection with t
e
qp is clear in Daniel 2:40 and 7:7. At the same time, the term
describes political authority in Ezra 4:20. Especially interesting in this regard is the diplomatic-political
alliance building suggested in Daniel 2:43. Nations may impose their wills militarily through sheer force or
diplomatically through scheming coalitions. The endgame is the same regardless: Power!

719
See the notes on Daniel 2:41a-b for details of the language.

720
The opening prepositional phrase is l/some/to some extent [preposition, noun,
fm, sg, construct]; the main verb is ~~/will be [Peal, imperfect, 3
rd
, fm, sg]; the predicate adjective is
~/strong [adjective, fm, sg].

721
See Rosenthal 80; KB
2
, 1971r.

722
KB
2
, 1971r.

723
See the lexical notes on Daniel 2:40a, above.

[118]

Daniel 2:42c and some of it will be fragile is the final utterance in Daniel 2:42.

Grammar: Daniel 2:42c opens with the coordinating prepositional phrase and some of it
followed by the main verb will be and the predicate adjective, a participle fragile.
724

Syntax: syntactically, Daniel 2:42c functions to tease out the negative element in this nations
composite structure.

The use of the finite verb will be with the passive participle fragile is intended to signal a
general characteristic of this imposing fourth nation: This nation is fragile.
725
Co-existing with its
impressive military-political clout is its persistent brittleness.

Lexical: the participle fragile [t
e
bar] points to what is inherently breakable. The verb appears
only here in the Aramaic portion of Daniel.

The verb [t
e
bar] describes what is breakable or fragile.
726
BDB suggests that the verb describes
what may be broken into pieces.
727

The Septuagint traditions go with suntrib. When used in the passive voice, as it is here, the
sense of the verb is to be shivered to atoms, to be beaten to a jelly, to be shattered and crushed.
728
These
nuances may fit well with BDBs observation on the verb [t
e
bar].

Once more, we are not told precisely what makes this superpower vulnerable to being splintered
into pieces. If the next lines are any help, then the human attempt to forge alliances in the hope of retaining
ones grip on power may be in play. At the same time and looking further down the road, this
superpowers penchant for charting its own course irrespective of God is the ultimate cause of its downfall
[Daniel 2:44-45]. Finally, whatever the precise cause of this defenselessness, Daniel 2:42 is loud and clear
on the following point: Even superpowers have their incurable defects.

Victim of political intrigues [2:43]

Daniel 2:43a Now, inasmuch as you saw iron mixed together with clay is a line that is punctuated
with a z~qf q~tn, indicating a minor pause in the reading of the line. As we noted in connection with
Daniel 2:41a, this line is repeated in order to introduce a further interpretive nuance. The gist of the second
nuance is in the next line.

724
The opening prepositional phrase is ~./and some of it [conjunction, preposition, with a
3
rd
, fm, sg, suffix]; the participial predicate is ~>/fragile [Peal, passive participle, fm, sg].

725
Bauer-Leander 82 c.

726
KB
2
, 2004r.

727
BDB, 1117r.

728
LSJ, 1728-29.

[119]

Daniel 2:43b they will mix together with the seed of men is punctuated with another z~qf q~tn,
indicating a minor pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:43b opens with the verbal element they will mix together with and then
the direct object the seed of men.
729

Syntax: the syntax of the verbal collocation is normally used to signal a typical pattern of
behavior.
730
At the same time, the collocation may indicate what this nation will do in the future.
731

Frankly, we doubt that the future nuance here should be reduced to a single event; the writer could well
have in mind the repetition of a pattern over time in the future.

Lexical: the main action word will mix together [!,rab] ultimately is a cipher for intermarriage.
KoNhler-Baumgartner glosses to mingle.
732
Holladay goes with to mix or join.
733
When used with the
direct object seed [z
e
ra!] the collocation points to intermarriage.

There are two options here. Montgomery notes that in effect this collocation depicts state
marriages between nations.
734
The issue of interdynastic marriage will come up later in Daniel 11. At the
same time, the same collocation of terms mix together [!,rab] and seed [z
e
ra!] is used in the Hebrew
Bible of intermarriage between different races and cultures [Ezra 9:2]. The use of the language for
politically arranged state marriages in Daniel 11 argues for the former nuance, at least as far as the use of
the collocation appears in Daniel.

The reader may wish to weigh and consider the proposal that this fourth kingdom attempts to stay
in power by means of arranged marital alliances. There is no real hint in Daniel 2:43 that this action was
taken out of desperation; it could be an allusion to a strategy utilized as a matter of course.

Daniel 2:43c but, they will not cling to one another is a line that is punctuated with an àtnach,
indicating the major pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:43c opens with the verbal collocation but, they will not cling to with the
object one another.
735

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:43c is to present the reader with the contrast to Daniel
2:43b.
736

729
The verbal component is a finite verb with a participle; the finite verb is =~-/they will
[Peal, imperfect, 3
rd
, ms, pl] and the participle is >/mix together [Hithpael, participle,
ms, pl].

730
Rosenthal 177.

731
Bauer-Leander 81 i.

732
KB
2
, 1953r.

733
Holladay, 417.

734
Montgomery, 189.

735
The verbal component is >/cling to [Peal, participle, ms, pl]
=~-.-/will not [Peal, imperfect, 3
rd
, ms, pl].

736
For the contrastive function of the conjunction, waw, see Bauer-Leander 70 p.

[120]

The syntax of the finite verb with the participle parallels that in Daniel 2:43b.

Lexical: the obvious lexical matter of moment is the sense of cling to [d
e
bq]. KoNhler-
Baumgartner translates to cling to or to stick to.
737
This lexicon also cites Ancient Near Eastern cognates
for the verb. Among these cognates, we have an Imperial Aramaic cognate that means to adjoin and a
Jewish Aramaic cognate that means to hang on to.
738
Holladay translates the verb in 2:43c with hold
together.
739

There is Hebrew cognate [d~baq] that could figure into how we read Daniel 2:43c. That is, used
metaphorically, the Hebrew verb [d~baq] suggests loyalty and possibly affection.
740
Holladay offers a
sense of allegiance to the figurative sense of the verb.
741
Naturally, these nuances are dependent on the use
of the verb in the context.

To the extent that Daniel 2:43c is an adversative sentence, we have here the human failure of
alliances built specifically for the retention of political power. Daniel 2:43c underlines the shortage of
human loyalty and personal allegiance that blights mankinds political calculations. The reader may want
to weigh and consider the proposition that political expediency born of political self-interest is short-lived
at best or doomed at worst.

Daniel 2:43d just as iron does not mix together with clay is the final sentence in Daniel 2:43.

The sentence is a comparative, making an assertion that justifies the preceding line, Daniel
2:43c.
742
The point of this line is, as Joyce Baldwin notes, unity is not possible and the kingdom is
vulnerable because it is seeking to unite elements which will not coalesce.
743

737
KB
2
, 1848.

738
Ibid.

739
Holladay, 401.

740
BDB, 179.

741
Holladay, 66.

742
Bauer-Leander 70 w; Rosenthal 86.

743
Baldwin, 93.

[121]

Interpretation of the stone, 2:44-45

Paragraph sense

(i) [Adversative to 2:37-43 with temporal indicator] However, on account of the days of these reigns,
(ii) [Commissive concerning (i)] the God of heaven will establish a kingdom,
(iii) [Elaboration of (ii)] that will never be destroyed,
(iv) [Elaboration of (iii)] indeed, royal authority will not pass on to another people;
(v) [Appositional elaboration of (ii-iv)] it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms,
(vi) [Adversative to (v)] but it will stand forever.
(vii) [Causal/basis for (i-vi)] Because of the fact that you saw a stone that was cut out of the mountain
yet without human hands,
(viii) [Continuation of causal statement] and it destroyed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and
the gold,
(ix) [Result of (vii-viii)] the great God has made known to the king what will arise after this;
(x) [Conclusion to (i-ix)] thus, true the dream and trustworthy the interpretation.

Genre

The genre of Daniel 2:44-45 is a dream interpretation.
744

Daniel 2:44a However, on account of the days of these reigns is a line that is punctuated with a
rebT
a!
, pointing to a slight pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:44a opens with a prepositional phrase on account of the days followed by
a genitive construction that clarifies days of these reigns.
745

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:44a is to present a contrast to 2:37-43.
746
In contrast
to the parade of world-wide political kingdoms, spread out over and indefinite period of time, the God of
heaven will act in a decisive way to counteract them all.

The syntactical function of the prepositional phrase is instrumental/causal; the phrase simply
indicates the reason for which God will act.
747
Almost all of the English translations render this
prepositional phrase as a temporal line: in the time of or during the reign of. The temporal use of this
preposition is certainly possible, if not more often than not the usual translation. However, since Daniel
2:44-45 has a tone of judgment to it, Daniel might intend to assign the reason for the appearance of the
stone [2:45]: As a result of the days of these reigns, Yahweh acts. Moreover, his address to
Nebuchadnezzar would take on a more profound and thought provoking edge with this causal flavor.

744
See the notes above on Dream Interpretation.

745
The prepositional phrase is =~=>/however, in the days [disjunctive waw,
preposition, noun, ms, pl, construct with a 3
rd
, ms, pl, suffix (literally, in those days)]; the genitive is
../those [personal pronoun, 3
rd
, ms, pl] .--/kings [definite article, noun, ms, pl].

746
For the adversative sense of waw, see Bauer-Leander 70 w.

747
For the instrumental/causal use of >, see Bauer-Leander 68 b [durch (as a result of)], BDB,
1084, KB
2
, 1830.


[122]

The demonstrative pronoun functions like a demonstrative adjective. In Biblical Aramaic, when
the demonstrative functions as an adjective, the modified noun reigns is definite and the demonstrative
adjective normally follows the noun these.
748
Furthermore, it may be the case that, as in Biblical Hebrew,
this demonstrative may function to summarize a characteristic concerning a period of time.
749
If this
summarizing use is considered, then the sense of the phrase becomes on account of the days of these
[kinds of] reigns.

If the above construction placed on these terms is correct, then the temporal reference to the days
of these [kinds of] reigns is vague and open-ended. The summary statement the days of these [kind of]
reigns is unrestricted. Longman cites John Calvin here to the effect that Daniel intends to underscore the
truth that the kingdoms of the world are transient and that there is only one eternal kingdom.
750
Hartman
and Di Lella summarize the point thus:
751

Just as the mysterious stone that smashed the tile feet of the statue
caused the whole statue to tumble down and be reduced to dust, which
the wind carried away, while the stone itself grew into a mountain that
filled the whole earth, so the God of Israel will annihilate the kingdoms
of men and in their place establish his own universal kingdom.

Accordingly, the reader may weigh and consider dispensing with identifying kingdoms and
chronologies. The kind of hair-splitting that is often involved in linking the parts of the statue with specific
and historical regimes has the unfortunate tendency to obscure the larger point: There is an all-
encompassing pattern in history the efforts of man to govern will come to nothing and then, when
Yahweh is ready, He will intervene with His eternal kingdom.

Daniel 2:44b the God of heaven will establish a kingdom is a line that is punctuated with pat~,

Grammar: Daniel 2:44b opens with the main verb will establish followed by the subject of
the verb the God of heaven and wrapping up with the direct object a kingdom.
752

Syntax: The Aphel stem of the verb will establish underscores Yahwehs active-causative
role in establishing this kingdom.
753
The fact that this upcoming kingdom is Gods affair has been
underlined by Daniel in 2:34 and 2:45, both making the point that this kingdom is built without human aid.
As Russell observes, God is in control and will accomplish His eternal purpose in spite of all the
machinations of men.
754

Lexical: God acts to establish [q|m] a kingdom [malk|]. Both terms are important.

748
Van Pelt, 57; see also Bauer-Leander 21 e.

749
See IBHS, 17.5b.

750
Longman, 83.

751

752
The main verb is /will establish [Aphel, imperfect, 3
rd
, ms, sg]; the subject is
./the heavens [definite article, noun, ms, pl] ~-./God of [noun, ms, sg, construct]; and the
direct object is --/kingdom [noun, fm, sg].

753
For the meaning of this stem, see Van Pelt, 150; Rosenthal 99.

754
Russell, Daniel, 55.

[123]

We have seen the verb previously. Establish [q|m] is the action God takes in setting up kings in
Daniel 2:21. Not only does Yahweh set up political power-players on a world-wide scale, He also will
establish [q|m] the only kingdom that will survive in perpetuity.

The sense of the verb [q|m] is probably something like to found,
755
or to set up.
756
The Septuagint
traditions vary slightly. One traditions uses histmi, while Theodotion uses anaistmi. The former term
may be translated causally with to make to stand or to set up.
757
The latter term, when used in a causal
context, may be translated to make to stand up or to raise up.
758
When all is said and done, the reader gets
the point: God will take the initiative, independent of human political skill and savvy, to found and
establish a kingdom that will never disappear [2:44c].

The direct object of this raising up is a kingdom [malk|]. BDB understands this term in the sense
of the administrative side of rule, translating kingdom [malk|] in the sense of an organized kingdom.
759

Kohler-Baumgartner follow suit, glossing malk| in the sense of realm or possibly sovereignty.
760
The
Hebrew cognate [malk|t] sheds light. Kohler-Baumgartner translate malk|t with royal dominion.
761

BDB offers two relevant nuances for malk|t: [1] royal power or royal dominion and [2] kingdom or
realm.
762
Holladay opts for [1] royal power or dominion, [2] governmental activity, [3] realm and [4]
dominion.
763

The Hebrew cognate [malk|t] is used of Yahwehs kingdom.
764
Some of these references have
useful parallel terms; terms that can help the reader understand the sense of kingdom [malk|t]. For
example, in Psalm 45:6, Yahwehs kingdom [malk|t] is parallel to Yahwehs throne [kiss]. The throne is
a seat of honor,
765
suggesting superiority, and a place from which a king rules,
766
suggesting ultimate
authority. Thus, preeminence and power are part and parcel of Yahwehs kingdom [malk|t].

755
KB
2
, 1968r.

756
BDB, 1111r.

757
LSJ, 841.

758
Ibid., 144.

759
BDB, 1100r.

760
KB
2
, 1918r.

761
KB
1
, 593.

762
BDB, 574-75.

763
Holladay, 199.

764
1 Chronicles 17:14 [My kingdom (malk|t)]; Psalm 45:6 [Your kingdom (malk|t)]; 103:19 [His
kingdom (malk|t)]; 145:11 [Your kingdom (malk|t)], 12 [Your kingdom (malk|t)], 13 [Your kingdom
(malk|t)].

765
KB
1
, 487.

766
BDB, 491.

[124]

In Psalm 103:19, the poet tells us that Yahwehs kingdom [malk|t] rules [m~shal] over
everything. Obviously, Psalm 103:19 intends to links Yahwehs kingdom [malk|t] with Yahwehs
universal rule. The Hebrew term used for rule [m~shal] specifies the one who is in authority.
767
That
Yahweh is ruler [m~shal] is the one fundamental statement in the theology of the Old Testament.
768
The
net effect is that Yahwehs kingdom [malk|t] is the place where Yahweh exercises His unassailable rule
[see also Psalm 145:13 in this regard].

The sum of the matter is this: God will establish a kingdom means that Yahweh alone, without the
aid of this worlds political power-players, will found a kingdom, a place where His rule and authority are
incontrovertible.

Daniel 2:44c that will never be destroyed is a line that is punctuated with a z~qf q~tn,

Grammar: Daniel 2:44c opens with the relative marker that followed by a prepositional
phrase never and the main verb will not be destroyed.
769

Syntax: the syntactical function of the relative clause is to present more complex information
concerning the nature of the kingdom that God is establishing.

The negative particle [l] with this prepositional phrase [l
e
!~l
e
mTn] combines to communicate
never.
770

The Hithpaal stem of the verb be destroyed signals a passive nuance.
771
The syntactic-
semantic function of this stem is to denote that this kingdom is invulnerable to forces from the outside.
This kingdom, unlike those just mentioned [2:38-43], will remain impervious to the kinds of powers that
depose human governance. As Joyce Baldwin writes, Whereas the world-kingdoms had been taken over
by successive conquerors, none will take this kingdom by storm.
772

Daniel 2:44d indeed, royal authority will not pass on to another people is a line that is punctuated
with an àtnach, indicating the major break in the reading of the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:44d opens with the subject of the line royal authority followed by a
prepositional phrase to another people and wraps up with the main verb will not pass on to.
773

767
KB
1
, 647r.

768
Ludwig Kohler, Old Testament Theology, translated by A.S. Todd, (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1957), 30.

769
The prepositional phrase is --/never [preposition (-) prefixed to a noun, ms,
pl]; the main verb is ->W/be destroyed [Hithpaal, imperfect, 3
rd
, fm, sg] .- [negative particle].

770
For this construction, see KB
2
, 1949r.

771
Van Pelt, 138; Bauer-Leander 76 w.

772
Baldwin, 93.

773
The subject is ~--/indeed, royal authority [conjunctive waw, definite article,
noun, fm, sg]; the prepositional phrase is W./another [adjective, ms, sg] -/to people
[preposition (-), noun, ms, sg]; and the main verb is >/pass on to [Hithpeel, imperfect, 3
rd
, fm,
pl].

[125]

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:44d is to tack on another piece of information to the
relative clause begun in 2::44c. The upshot is that there are at least two points of elaboration concerning
the kingdom that Yahweh is going to set up [2:44b]: [1] it will never be destroyed [2:44c] and [2] the
divine authority remains the prerogative of Yahweh [2:44d].

Lexical: the subject of the sentence is royal authority [malk|], which calls for attention.
Moreover, the object of the prepositional phrase [!am ochr~n] requires definition, as well as the main verb
[sh
e
baq].

The setting in which royal authority is used here suggests that royal authority [malk|] means the
act of ruling or the exerciseof sovereignty. The previous use of royal authority [malk|] in Daniel 2:44b
emphasized Yahwehs office of ruling; here, in Daniel 2:44d, the sense of royal authority [malk|] shifts to
include the act of ruling or the exercise of authority. As noted above, the exercise of Divine authority
remains the direct prerogative of Yahweh. This had not always been the case.

The act of ruling [m~shal] was, at one time, the unique prerogative of Yahweh. When Gideon
was asked by the people of God to rule [m~shal] over them, Gideons response was quick and firm: Only
Yahweh shall rule [m~shal] over you [Judges 8:23].

However, things would change. In 1 Samuel 8:5, the leaders of Israel, wearied of the moral and
ethical failures of the sons of Samuel, ask for a king. Samuel heard this and considered the request sinful,
so he prayed about it [1 Samuel 8:6]. Yahwehs response seems surprising; He tells Samuel to listen to the
people and give them everything they want [1 Samuel 8:7]. Then, Yahweh adds this: They have not
rejected you rather they have rejected Me as their king [1 Samuel 8:7]. Later, in 1 Samuel 12:14-15,
Samuel teases out the relationship between God and king: If you fear Yahweh and worship and obey Him,
and if you do not reject Yahwehs commands, then both you and the king who rules over you will follow
the Lord, your God [1 Samuel 12:14]. Yahweh is willing to exercise His authority through a surrogate,
the earthly king.

The upshot is this: In 1 Samuel 8:7, the people of God rejected Yahwehs direct exercise of His
authority and rule over them. In 1 Samuel 12:14, Yahweh gives them what they want and agrees to
function as a sovereign through the agency of [emphasis mine] a human king, in spite of the fact that He
sees the very request as a rejection of His exclusive rule.
774
Then, in Daniel 2:44, Yahweh retrieves the
direct sovereignty He willingly set aside during the monarchy. What is more, His direct royal authority
will never again function through human agents. For those who accept the Lordship of Yahweh in life,
Yahweh is freely and delightedly granted the exercise of His sovereign authority [malk|] in life.

Regarding the people, Daniel affirms that Yahweh will never again pass on His royal authority,
the exercise of His sovereignty, to another [ochr~n] people [!am]. The noun glossed people [!am]
suggests humanity in general in this context. There are, however, options for translating this noun. First,
the noun can mean people in general, the populace, or even more broadly a nation.
775
In this general use,
there are no kinship or ethnic connotations. Second, there are uses, dependent on context, where people
[!am] does signal a gentile or non-Israelite population. Indeed, this is how KoNhler-Baumgartner read the
term in this line.
776
However, the passages cited in support of this reading clearly disambiguate
contextually people as the people of Israel [Ezra 5:12; 7:13, 16, 25].

774
Moshe Halbertal and Avishai Margalit, Idolatry, translated by Naomi Goldblum (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1992), 218.

775
KB
2
, 1950; BDB, 766-67; Robert H. OConnell, , in NIDOTTE [H6638].

776
KB
2
, 1950r; also Holladay, 416r.

[126]

The question is: Does this line imply, as Professor Driver avers, that the kingdom is in the hands
of Israel?
777
Not necessarily.

To begin with, when Daniel uses people [!am] in the sense of the people of Israel he tends to make
his reference clear. For example, in the great prayer of confession for Daniels people [!am] Israel in
Daniel 9, the prophet clearly disambiguates people in the sense of Israel [Daniel 9:15, 16, 19, 20 (my
people Israel), 24; 11:14 (your own people)]. Moreover, when Daniel uses the noun elsewhere, he seems to
use it in the more general sense noted above [8:24; 9:26 (people of the coming prince); 11:32 (people who
know their God), 33 (the wise among the people); 12:1 (people, everyone whose name is written in the
book), 7 (the power of the holy people)].

The upshot is this: There is nothing in the context of the content of the dream [Daniel 2:31-36] or
the interpretation of the dream [Daniel 2:37-45] that mentions or alludes to Israel. Indeed, we have made
the point that in Daniel 2:44a, the prophet is thinking in global terms vis--vis kingdoms. Moreover,
Daniels use of the noun, people [!am], when he does have Israel in mind is clearly disambiguated. Finally,
Daniels use of the term seems to broaden as the book progresses. That is, people [!am] is expanded to
refer to people who know their God, and to the wise among the people, and especially to the people whose
name is written in the book. There are two consequences: First, the exercise of Yahwehs Divine
sovereignty is His prerogative, and second, the exercise of His Divine prerogative will not be shared with
Israel. This was tried and it resulted in the Exile.

The main verb in the line pass on to [sh
e
baq] means that the royal authority will not be left to
or devolve upon another people. KoNhler-Baumgartner translate sh
e
baq in the sense of to be left with or to
pass on to.
778
BDB simply translates sh
e
baq with to be left.
779
Holladay prefers to pass the sovereignty on
to.
780
The Greek translation uses a verb [ea] that means to permit or to allow.
781
Theodotion uses
hupoleip, which may be read in the sense of to be left remaining or to remain in force.
782

Hartman and DiLella translate sh
e
baq with to deliver up to.
783
Collins translates will never be left
to.
784
Goldingay goes with pass on to.
785

The sum of the matter is this: Yahwehs royal authority remains with Yahweh. On one level, no
other people will have the strength to dominate
786
Yahwehs royal sovereignty. At a second level, Daniel

777
S.R. Driver, The Book of Daniel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1901), 30; also

778
KB
2
, 1991r.

779
BDB, 1114r.

780
Holladay, 421.

781
LSJ, 466.

782
LSJ, 1887.

783

784
Collins, Daniel, 153.

785
Goldingay, 32.

786

[127]

2:44d affirms the absolute and direct sovereignty of Yahweh in human history. Yahweh is King, as the
next line makes abundantly clear.

Daniel 2:44e it [Gods kingdom] will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms is a line that is

Grammar: Daniel 2:44e opens with the two main verbs it will crush and put an end to
followed by the direct object all these kingdoms.
787

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:44e is to round out the relative clause begun in 2:44c.
The net effect is that the prophet tells us three things about this kingdom: [1] Gods kingdom will never be
destroyed (2:44c), [2] its royal authority remains the sole prerogative of Yahweh (2:44d), and [3] Gods
kingdom will entirely rout all of its opponents (2:44e).

We may have an example of hendiadys with these two verbs. Hendiadys occurs when an author
uses two words of a similar meaning to communicate a single concept.
788
In verbal hendiadys, the first
verb qualifies the second in an adverbial manner.
789
Translating as a single concept, the translation could
be read: utterly destroy or thoroughly annihilate. Clearly, if this is an example of hendiadys, then the
reader should note well the emphasis placed on this absolute obliteration.

The Aphel stem of both verbs signal active causation.
790
The total annihilation of these
kingdoms, what amounts to the various instantiations of human governance, will be the doing of the
kingdom of God.

These is a demonstrative pronoun used as an adjective.
791
As in Daniel 2:44a, so here, the
demonstrative has a summarizing function. The reader may infer something like these [kinds of] kingdoms.
To be sure, this kingdom will fill the entire earth [Daniel 2:35], thus supporting the summarizing reference
in 2:44e. Hartman and Di Lella recap:
792

Whereas the pagan kingdoms of the world are man-made affairs and
thus, like all the works of man, pass away, the new eschatological
kingdom is the work of God no human hand carves out the stone
and therefore it will stand forever.

Lexical: clearly, the two main verbs are crucial in understanding this line. The first verb crush
[d
e
qaq] is obviously a weighty term that may be glossed to shatter, or to break into pieces.
793
Holladay is
a bit more graphic, translating to pulverize.
794
For the most part, this Aramaic verb is used in the Aramaic
section of Daniel [1] to depict what the forces of God do to pagan political power-players [Daniel 2:34, 35,
44, 45] and [2] to describe what these same worldly political rulers do to one another [Daniel 2:40; 7:7, 19,

787
The main verbs are _/and put an end to [Aphel, imperfect, 3
rd
, fm, sg]
/crush [Aphel, imperfect, 3
rd
, fm, sg].

788
See Beekman and Callow, 212.

789
Allen P. Ross, Introducing Biblical Hebrew (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 409.

790
Van Pelt, 150; Bauer-Leander 76 i.

791
Rosenthal 34.

792

793
BDB, 1089r.

794
Holladay, 403r.

[128]

23]. The reader can appreciate the overall signal here: The world of political power-players is one
destruction and defeat; it simply depends on who is the sender and who is the receiver. Moreover, the verb
also signals the ongoing confrontation between the forces of Yahweh and those of the politically driven
kingdom of this world.

The second verb put an end to [[|p] describes what Yahweh does to completely annihilate
these competing kingdoms of man.
795
The Neo-Syrian cognate underscores that which ceases to exist.
796

The Septuagint translation uses anaphainiz, a verb that means to do away with or to remove.
797

The reader will observe that Yahwehs domination of human political governance in Daniel 2:21
is also operational here, albeit in a more final way. Russell neatly sums up the point: Daniel 2:44e is a
declaration that all nations which exalt themselves vaingloriously and trust in human might are subject to
the judgment of God and must in the end submit to the power of the kingdom.
798

However, there are now two key points. The reader has already noted the programmatic nature of
Daniel 2:20-21. That is, Yahweh is the sovereign Lord of human history [Daniel 2:20-21]. In other words,
mans history is the province of God. To the programmatic nature of Daniel 2:20-21, we may now add
Daniel 2:44. Not only is Yahweh the sovereign Lord of human geopolitics [2:20-21], but also His
Kingdom is destined to supplant all forms of human governance [2:44]. The reader should fully appreciate
the contribution of Daniel chapter two in making these all-embracing twin claims.

Daniel 2:44f but it will stand forever is the last word in Daniel 2:44.

Grammar: Daniel 2:44f opens with the subject but it followed by the main verb will stand
and then a prepositional phrase forever.
799

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:44f is to present a contrast to the dissolution of all
forms of human governance in 2:44e.
800
The sentence is an adversative sentence.

There is probably a certain emphasis placed on the subject it [feminine/kingdom]. The main
verb is already inflected for the third person, feminine, so the addition of the pronoun may be read as an
attempt to emphasize the kingdom.
801
Since the previous sentence promises the termination of human
governance, we could read the pronoun here as: it [the kingdom and the kingdom alone] will stand forever.

Lexical: of lexical interest is the main action word will stand [q|m]. For openers, the reader
should appreciate the back reference to Daniel 2:21, where Yahweh causes kings to stand [q|m]. If
nothing else, this back reference clearly demonstrates Yahwehs unqualified sovereignty over human
political history. That is, Yahweh removes and establishes political leadership throughout history [Daniel

795
KB
2
, 1938r.

796
Ibid.

797
LSJ, 286.

798

799
The main verb is /will stand [Peal, imperfect, 3
rd
, fm, sg].

800
For the contrastive function of the conjunction, waw, see Bauer-Leander 70 p.

801
Bauer-Leander 72 a.


[129]

2:21]. In addition, Yahweh terminates them [Daniel 2:44e] and establishes [q|m] His kingdom in
perpetuity [Daniel 2:44f].
802

Daniel 2:45a Because of the fact that you saw a stone that was cut out of a mountain, without
hands is a sentence that is punctuated with a r
e
bT
a
, signaling a pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:45a opens with a causal marker Because of the fact that followed by the
main verb you saw then a relative marker that with a prepositional phrase out of a mountain and
the main verb in the relative clause was cut and the subject of this verb a stone and then a
concluding relative without hands.
803

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:45a is to stipulate the basis for the claim made in
2:44. The logic of 2:44-45 is: Yahwehs royal authority will completely annihilate all forms of human
governance [2:44d] and His royal authority alone will remain in effect throughout the ages [2:44e], because
you saw the stone that was cut from a mountain without human aid [2:45a].
804

The main verb in the relative clause was cut is written in the Ithpeel stem, a stem that signals
that the stone was passive as far as the action of the main verb.
805
The stress in the sentence falls upon the
fact that this stone was not the product of human effort.

Lexical: the operative term in this sentence is stone [eben]. The operative action is that this stone
was cut without hands [yad].

The noun stone [eben] is used six times in Daniel. Three of them refer to this stone that
crushes [2:34], which became a great mountain [2:35], and that appeared without human initiative or
intervention [2:45a]. Two are stone idols [5:4, 23] and one refers to the stone that covered the opening of
the lions den [6:18].

That stone [eben] is used figuratively in the dream and the interpretation of the dream is
warranted when we note that the stone [eben] that struck the statue in 2:35 is the kingdom of God in 2:44.
As far as the noun itself is concerned, KoNhler-Baumgartner note that stone [eben] may be used
concretely or metaphorically.
806
To be sure, a stone [eben] that destroys all the political power-players
[2:45b] is a metaphorical use of the term.

The drift of the metaphor is seems to be judgment in Daniel 2:45a-b. The stone [eben] struck the
statue [2:34a-b] at its most vulnerable point and shattered it [2:34c], thus completely obliterating the statue
from the face of the earth [2:35]. Furthermore, the stone [eben] that crushes these politically powerful
nations is in reality the kingdom of God [2:44a, e, 45b]. The net effect is that the stone/kingdom is an
instrument of judgment along the way of Yahweh establishing His kingdom [2:44a] that will stand in
perpetuity [2:44f].

802
See the lexical notes above on Daniel 2:21 for will stand [q|m].
803
The line is a causal line, opening with the causal marker: ->--; the main verb
is W/you saw [Peal, perfect, 2
nd
, ms, sg]; the main verb in the first relative clause is
-./was cut [Ithpeel, perfect, 3
rd
, fm, sg]; the final relative is >/with hands
[preposition (>) prefixed to a noun, fm, dual] .-/without [negative adverb].

804
For the causal nuance of the causal marker, see Bauer-Leander 70 h; Rosenthal 86.

805
Van Pelt, 125-26; Bauer-Leander 76 r.

806
KB
2
, 1806.

[130]

There are hints of the stone [eben] functioning as a metaphor of the Messianic kingdom. In
Isaiah 28:16 and Zechariah 3:9, the stone [eben] seems to have Messianic overtones. Moreover, judgment
is associated with the stone in Isaiah 28:17.

Finally, Jesus may have had Daniel 2:44-45 in mind when He cites the stone over which those
who fall are broken into pieces [Luke 20:18]. Again, the stone is a metaphor of judgment.
Be all of this as it may, the reader is cautioned against losing the forest for the trees as far as the
stone [eben] is concerned. Daniel 2:44-45 is intent on communicating the ruinous vulnerability in which
the nations of the world [represented by the statue] find themselves, owing to this stone. As Goldingay
writes, the stone becomes a mortal danger to those who build on their own edifices and refuges (Isaiah
8:11-15).
807
The upshot is that the stone is an instrument of Divine judgment on the idolatry of politics
represented by the statue.

The origin and emergence of this stone is attributed to being cut out of a mountain [|r] without
human aid [yad].

The Aramaic noun translated mountain is used only twice in Daniel [2:35, 45]. This Aramaic
noun does have a Hebrew cognate [ts|r] that is often used of God and is translated rock. There are a
variety of associations with Yahweh as rock/mountain. For example, Yahweh is a rock in the sense that all
His ways are just [Deuteronomy 32:4]. Yahweh is a rock of protection [Psalm 18:2], a rock of salvation
[Psalm 18:46], and a rock of judgment [Habakkuk 1:12]. To be sure, this stone [eben] is also an
instrument of judgment. However, the reader must be cautious about making too many associations
between rock/mountain [ts|r] and Yahweh, at least in terms of Daniels intent in 2:45a. It is best to simply
note the use of the Hebrew cognate [ts|r] in the background while focusing on the judgment motif that is in
the foreground.

Without hands is a phrase that underlines the Divine origin behind this stone [Daniel 2:45a]. The
gist of the metaphor is to deny human assistance in the fashioning and work of this stone.
808

Daniel 2:45b and it [the stone] destroyed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold is
a line that is punctuated with a z~qf q~tn, indicating a brief pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:45b commences with the main verb and it destroyed followed by each of
the five direct objects.
809

Daniel 2:45c the great God has made known to the king what will happen after this is another
sentence that is punctuated with a z~qf q~tn, indicating a brief pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:45c opens with the subject of the sentence the great God followed by the
main verb has made known with a prepositional phrase as indirect object to the king and concluding
with a relative clause what will happen after this.
810

807
Goldingay, 52.

808
See the notes on Daniel 2:34a.

809
The main verb is ~/and it destroyed [Haphel, perfect, 3
rd
, fm, sg]; see the notes on
Daniel 2:34c for the sense of this word.

810
The subject of the main clause is >/great [adjective, ms, sg] ~-./God [noun, ms, sg];
the main verb is =~/has made known [Haphel, perfect, 3
rd
, ms, sg]; the verb in the relative is
.~-/will happen [Peal, imperfect, 3
rd
, ms, sg].


[131]

Syntax: the precise syntactical function of Daniel 2:45c is difficult to pin down. There is no
conjunction attached to the clause that would disambiguate the syntactical function of the line. The
absence of a conjunction suggests an appositional sentence.
811
If the sentence is used in apposition to
2:45a-b, then the content of the sentence as well as the perfect aspect of the main verb suggest that Daniel
2:45c is a summary in apposition to Daniel 2:45a-b.
812

The syntactical-semantic thrust of the Haphel stem on the main verb has made known is
active causative.
813
Daniel is claiming that Yahweh is the direct source of this interpretation. This
assertion also back references the programmatic assertion in Daniel 2:23c. What is more, the perfect aspect
of the verb probably signals existing results.
814
The assertion has made known effectively summarizes
where the king is in terms of understanding the dream.

The syntactical import of the imperfect aspect verb in the relative clause will happen simply
signals futurity.
815
It is wise not to over-interpret the verbal aspect here. That is, the reader should
remember that imperfect aspect simply indicates [1] an incomplete action or [2] a state of being.
816
To be
sure, the verb that is used here [h,w>] fills the bill for communicating a state of being at some indefinite
point in the future.

The syntactical function of the prepositional phrase in the relative clause after [ach
a
rA] this is
temporal.
817
But, the sense of the phrase after this seems to be open-ended. Bauer-Leander translates
the prepositional phrase with afterward or simply later.
818
KoNhler-Baumgartner translates after this.
819

Holladay offers hereafter.
820
Many English versions go with in the future, and this adequately captures the
sense of the prepositional phrase. There is no hint here of the end of human history.

Lexical: the subject of the sentence great God and the main verb has made known call for
attention.

The subject of the action of revealing is the great [rab] God [
e
l~h]. This is the only place in the
Aramaic section of the Old Testament where this precise collocation occurs.

The fact that there is no definite article in the collocation does not warrant reading a great God,
since such a claim would be completely counter to Daniels theology [see Daniel 2:20-23]. What is more,

811

812
Ibid., 53.

813

814
Bauer-Leander 79 c.

815
Ibid., 78 f.

816
Van Pelt, 91.

817
Bauer-Leander 69 a; Rosenthal 84.

818
Ibid., 68 v.

819
KB
2
, 1810r; also BDB, 1079r.

820
Holladay, 397.


[132]

some nouns, such as those for Divine names, are intrinsically definite and do not require the definite
article.
821

The adjective great [rab] is used figuratively. BDB reads the adjective as a figure of power
and influence.
822
This figurative use would certainly fit the context for the God who makes known the
content and meaning of this dream. The Septuagint traditions opt for megas, a quality term in Classical
Greek that may be translated great or mighty.
823
The adjective is used twice of Yahweh in the Aramaic
section of Daniel, here and Daniel 4:3. In the latter passage, Nebuchadnezzar extols the greatness [rab] of
Yahweh evidently in terms of Yahwehs might [t
e
qp]. At least for Nebuchadnezzar, Yahwehs greatness
is wrapped up in His might.

Has made known is code for Divine revelation. As noted above in the section on syntax, the
syntactical-semantic thrust of the active causative stem of this verb means that Yahweh is the direct source
of this revelation through Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar.

What is more, this same verb is used of Yahweh in the programmatic section of Daniel 2, Daniel
2:22. In this line, Daniel affirms that Yahweh knows [y
e
da! ] what is in darkness. So it is here; the mystery
that was the meaning of this dream was for Nebuchadnezzar a matter of complete darkness. Only God can
penetrate the darkness and bring meaning to light.

The Haphel stem of this verb [y
e
da! ] can be translated literally to cause to know or more simply
to inform.
824
The trajectory of Daniel 2 has underlined a key point in this regard. That is, the close political
advisors and gurus of the king have come up empty-handed. They have confessed that they are out of their
depth when it comes to this dream and its meaning [Daniel 2:10-11]. Furthermore, even Daniel has to
prayerfully seek the Divine answer to the enigma [Daniel 2:17-18]. The sum of the matter is that there are
some things, so shrouded in darkness, that only Yahweh can retrieve them and make them comprehensible.

Daniel 2:45d thus, true the dream and trustworthy the interpretation is the final utterance by
Daniel in the declaration and interpretation of the dream.

Grammar: Daniel 2:45d opens with the subject of the first nominal clause true followed by
the predicate the dream. This is then followed by a second noun clause that also opens with the subject
trustworthy and again the predicate the interpretation.

Syntax: the syntax of the noun clauses implies that there is total semantic overlap between the
subjects of each clause and the predicates of each.
825
If this is taken at face value, then Daniel intends to
communicate the closest possible connection between his reconstruction/interpretation and the dream itself.

Lexical: the adjective that identifies Daniels report of the dream true [y
e
tsab] affirms that the
report of the dream is reliable, certain, and thus true.
826
Bauer-Leander glosses the adjective as definite,
solid or stable.
827

821
See Van Pelt, 26; see also IBHS, 13.4.

822
BDB, 1112r.

823
LSJ, 1088.

824
BDB, 1095.

825
Francis I. Andersen, The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch (Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1970), 32. I am aware that Daniel 2 is Aramaic, not Hebrew, and in the Writings of the Hebrew
Bible, not the Pentateuch; at the same time, the pattern that Andersen establishes in this kind of clause as
well as the way the pattern fits in Daniel make this association plausible.

826
KB
2
, 1893r.

[133]

Daniel 2:46-49 King Nebuchadnezzar Praises God

Translation (2:46) Then, King Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and paid homage to Daniel; and an
offering and an incense offering he ordered to be offered to him. (2:47) Then, the king answered and said
to Daniel, Of a truth, your God the Supreme God, and a lord of kings a revealer of mysteries, since you
were able to resolve this mystery. (2:48) Thereupon, the king exalted Daniel, and many great gifts he gave
to him, and then, he made him ruler over the entire province of Babylon; as well as the chief prefect over
the wise men of Babylon. (2:49) Then, Daniel requested of the king, and he [the king] appointed over the
administration of the province of Babylon: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego; but Daniel in the court of
the king.

Paragraph sense

(i) [Consequence of 2:29-45] Then, King Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face,
(ii) [Elaboration of (i)] and paid homage to Daniel;
(iii) [Elaboration of (ii)] an offering and an incense offering he ordered to be offered to him.

(iv) [Introduction to a speech] Then, the king answered and said to Daniel,
(v) [A praise of Yahweh] Of a truth, your God the Supreme God,
(vi) [Elaboration of (v)] and a lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries;
(vii) [Basis for (v-vi)] since you were able to resolve this mystery.

(viii) [Consequence of (iv-vii)] Then, the king exalted Daniel,
(ix) [Elaboration of (viii)] and many great gifts he [the king] gave to him,
(x) [Further elaboration of (viii)] then he [the king] made him ruler over the entire province of
Babylon;
(xi) [Elaboration of (x)] as well as the chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon.

(xii) [Consequence of (viii-xi)] Then, Daniel requested of the king,
(xiii) [Elaboration of (xii)] and he [the king] appointed over the administration of the province of
Babylon: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego;
(xiv) [Contrast to (xiii)] but Daniel in the court of the king.

Structure

The organization of the paragraph sense unpacks the structure of the final paragraph unit. The
paragraph opens with the deference of Nebuchadnezzar to Daniel [2:46; i-iii above]. There is certainly
some role reversal going on here.

The second component in the paragraph is Nebuchadnezzars statement of praise to God [2:47; iv-
vii above]. This statement of praise is underscored by the nominal clause: your God the Supreme God
[2:47b]. Once this commendation is made, the king then tacks on what he sees as concomitant ideas
[2:47c; vi above].

The third movement in this paragraph is the return to Daniel. The rewards are bountiful [2:48a-b;
viii-ix above]. The highlight of this sub-unit is Daniels promotion to a provincial governor [2:28c; x
above] and the chief of the wise men of Babylon [2:48d; xi above].

The fourth element in the paragraph is Daniels initiative in putting in a word for his comrades
[2:49]. The upshot is that Nebuchadnezzar made them administrative leaders [2:49b; xiii above]. But, the

827
Bauer-Leander 51 e.

[134]

paragraph closes with the reminder that it was Daniel who was in the royal court, a cabinet member as it
were [2:49c; xiv above].

Genre

Overall, Daniel 2:46-49 has the look of a narrative. That is, the writer intends to report on the
historical events in the aftermath of Daniels interpretation to Nebuchadnezzar.
828
In Daniel 2:46, the
narrative concerns Nebuchadnezzars homage to Daniel. In Daniel 2:48, the narrative subject is the kings
rewarding of Daniel. And, in 2:49, the narrative relates Daniels request for patronage for his three
comrades.

Embedded within the narrative genre, we also have Nebuchadnezzars doxology in praise of
Yahweh in Daniel 2:47.
829

Homage to Daniel, 2:46

Daniel 2:46a Then, King Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face is a line that is punctuated with a z~qf

Grammar: Daniel 2:46a opens with a coordinating conjunction then followed by the subject
of the sentence King Nebuchadnezzar with the main verb fell and a prepositional phrase upon his
face.
830

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:46a is to declare what the kings immediate response
to all of this was. The coordinating conjunction that is used [b
e
dayin] functions to underline what
happened at once upon Nebuchadnezzars hearing of this interpretation.
831
The context of the dream and
its interpretation [Daniel 2:38-45] is the trigger for this consequence.

Lexical: the question is: What is implied in the phrase to fall upon the face? At one level, as far as
the king is concerned, the phrase signals self-humiliation; at another level, as far as Daniel is concerned, the
phrase communicates respect. Nebuchadnezzar is bowing before a superior.

BDB picks up on the self-humiliation theme by translating the phrase with to fall down and do
homage.
832
E.J. Young remarks that this act is an act of respect. Respect is certainly communicated in the
Hebrew Bible when this phrase is used [2 Samuel 9:6; 1 Kings 18:7]. To be sure, the idea of respect is
teased out in the next line.

Daniel 2:46b and paid homage to Daniel is a line that is punctuated with an àtnach, pointing to the
main break in the reading of the line.

828
Collins, FOTL, 114.

829
Ibid., 108.

830
The main verb is -./fell [Peal, perfect, 3
rd
, ms, sg].

831
Bauer-Leander 68 b.

832
BDB, 1103r.


[135]

Grammar: Daniel 2:46b opens with the indirect object of the main verb to Daniel and
concludes with the main verb paid homage.
833

Syntax: the syntax of the line is a bit tricky. The syntactical function may be to further explain
what the Kings self-humiliation and show of respect [2:46a] meant.
834

Lexical: the sense of paid homage [s
e
gid] leads the reader into a theological thicket. As far as the
verb itself goes, the reader may infer that s
e
gid may be read in the sense of to pay homage. Indeed, the
major lexicons translate the verb this way.
835
However, the theological dilemma is that this verb, when
used in the Aramaic of Daniel and the Hebrew Bible, tends to point to worship.
836
Indeed, as used outside
of Daniel 2 in both the Aramaic and Hebrew sections of the Old Testament, the verb uniformly describes
idol worship. As we wade into the thicket, the question is not: Why does Nebuchadnezzar appear to
worship a human being? We might expect him to do so. Rather, the question is: Why does Daniel permit
this ostensible worship of himself? As the next line also seems to involve worship motifs, we postpone an
attempt at an answer.

Daniel 2:46c an offering and an incense offering he ordered to be offered to him is the final
sentence in Daniel 2:46.

Grammar: Daniel 2:46c opens with the two direct objects of the main verb in the line an
offering and an incense offering followed by the main verbal construction he ordered to be offered
and ending with the indirect object of this activity to him.
837

Syntax: once more, the syntactical function of Daniel 2:46c is a bit dicey. However, we may read
the waw that is prefixed to the first word in Daniel 2:46c as an explanatory waw.
838
If so, then Daniel
2:46b-c could read: he [Nebuchadnezzar] paid home to Daniel [2:246b], that is [explanatory waw], an
offering and an incense offering he [Nebuchadnezzar] ordered to be offered to him [Daniel; 2:46c]. As we
shall see presently, this explanatory function of the previous line [2:26b] carries forward the worship motif
begun in 2:46b. The thicket just got a bit thicker.

Lexical: obviously, there are three terms that are of interest: [1] offering (minch>), [2] incense
offering (nTchach), and [3] to be offered (n
e
sak).

[1] The term offering [minch>] is used only here in Daniel. KoNhler-Baumgartner notes that the
noun can be used in a general sense for an offering or more specifically for a grain offering, which is their
choice for 2:46c.
839
Holladay prefers the general sense here, glossing offering, while acknowledging the

833
The main verb is -/paid homage [Peal, perfect, 3
rd
, ms].

834
For this use of the conjunction, waw, see Bauer-Leander 70 r.
835
KB
2
, 1937r; BDB, 1104r; and Holladay, 414r.

836
The verb [s
e
gid] is used in the Aramaic section of Daniel to depict [1] worshiping the golden
image that Nebuchadnezzar set up (3:5-7, 10-12, 14-15), and [2] to describe the fact that Shadrach,
Meshach, and Abed-nego refused to worship this idol (3:18, 28). In the Hebrew Bible, the verb appears
only four times, all in Isaiah and all in reference to idol worship [Isaiah 44:15, 17, 19; 46:6].

837
The two direct objects are WW./and an incense offering [noun, ms, pl]
~W./and an offering [noun, fm, sg]; the verbal construction uses a finite verb with an infinitive.
The finite verb is ./he ordered [Peal, perfect, 3
rd
, ms] and the infinitive complement is
~-.-/to be offered [preposition (-), Pael, infinitive construct].

838
Bauer-Leander 70 r.

839
KB
2
, 1920r.


[136]

specific nuance, grain offering.
840
The only other use of the term in the Aramaic Bible is Ezra 7:17, where
the noun points to grain offering. C.J. Labuschagne suggests that minch> in both Daniel 2:46 and Ezra
7:17 means sacrifice.
841
Averbeck opts for grain offering in Daniel 2:46.
842

[2] The term incense offering [nTchach] is used only here in Daniel. The lexicons translate
either in a general sense of an offering or more specifically in reference an incense offering; most of
lexicons read the noun specifically, an incense offering.
843
F. Stolz reads nTchach in Daniel 2:46 in the
sense of incense offering.
844
KoNhler-Baumgartner notes that nTchach is a loanword from Hebrew [n|ch]
that means appeasement.
845

As far as the Hebrew cognate [nTch
a
ch] is concerned, it may be translated a soothing or
tranquilizing aroma that is satisfying to Yahweh.
846

[3] The infinitive to be offered [n~sak] implies some sort of sacrifice. KoNhler-Baumgartner
translate n~sak with to offer.
847
However, both BDB and Holladay opt for to offer in sacrifice to.
848
The
Aramaic verb is used only here and in Ezra 7:17, where it means to offer sacrifice to Yahweh. Theodotion
in his translation uses spend, verb that means to make/pour out a drink offering.
849

So, what do we make of this worship more or less directed to Daniel? At the outset, it does seem
as if Daniel accepts a level of worship normally reserved for Yahweh. Daniel 2:46c does affirm that two
expressions of worship normally used with Yahweh in view, an offering as well as an incense offering,
were directed to [offered to/sacrificed to] Daniel. As Driver remarks, Daniel does not refuse the
homage.
850

Looked at from Nebuchadnezzars point of, the king may well have been expressing his gratitude
in this very extravagant way, an expression common to the Ancient Near East of the time. B.A. Mastin has
noted that in the world in which the author of Daniel lived a benefactor could be treated like this without
impiety [emphasis mine], and Nebuchadnezzar is simply expressing in an extravagant way his great
gratitude for the very considerable service which Daniel has done him.
851
Then, looked at from Daniels
point of view, if Daniel understood this royal cultural phenomenon, then his silence is understandable.

840
Holladay, 412.

841
C.J. Labuschagne, ., in TLOT
2
, 780.

842
Richard Averbeck, ~W., in NIDOTTE [H4966].
843
KB
2
, 1930r; BDB, 1102r; Holladay, 417r.

844
F. Stolz, W., in TLOT
2
, 723.

845
KB
2
, 1930.

846
BDB, 629.

847
KB
2
, 1931r.

848
BDB, 1103r; Holladay, 413r.

849
LSJ, 1626.

850
Driver, 31.

851
B.A. Mastin, Daniel 2:46 and the Hellenistic World, in Zeitschrift fqr die Alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 85 (1973), 85.


[137]

That is, knowing what Nebuchadnezzar intends, Daniel is able to accommodate himself to his culture
without compromising his faith in Yahweh.
852

Doxology to Yahweh, 2:47

Daniel 2:47a Then, the king answered and said to Daniel is the opening line in Nebuchadnezzars
response. The line is punctuated with a r
e
bT
a
!, indicating a brief pause in the reading of the line.

Daniel 2:47b Of a truth, your God the Supreme God is the opening statement of the king in the
form of a nominal clause. The line is punctuated with a tifch~, indicating the last pause before the
àtnach.

Grammar: Daniel 2:47b opens with a prepositional phrase of a truth followed by a
nominative your God and then the subject of the nominal clause He and the predicate of the nominal
clause Supreme God.
853

Syntax: the function of this sentence is linked to the nominal clause. The use of the nominative
absolute your God followed by a personal pronoun as subject of a nominal clause He is a way of
focusing on the primary subject of the kings doxology Daniels God.
854
The upshot is that this sentence
functions to focus attention on your God.

The prepositional phrase is an example of the partitive use of the preposition [mTn] used
idiomatically to communicate of a truth or more smoothly truly.
855

The superlative function of the genitive construction, the Supreme God, literally god of Gods
is fairly common.
856
The reader should take into consideration the fact that a polytheist is making this
statement. It would be wise not to over-interpret the kings statement. Joyce Baldwin notes, As a
polytheist, he can always add another to the deities he worships.
857

Daniel 2:47c and a lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries is a line that is punctuated with an

852
In the Guidebook on Daniel 1, we noted that Daniel and his comrades were able to
accommodate themselves to their culture. At the outset of their royal court experience, they were educated
for three years in the language and literature of the Babylonians [1:4], which would have included studying
astrology. Even though this three year immersion in polytheistic literature would have been anathema to
these Jews, they did it anyway. Evidently, they knew where and when to accommodate. There is a lesson
here: Perhaps modern Christians should be willing to immerse themselves in the thought-worlds of other
cultures in order to witness for Yahweh.
853
The prepositional phrase is /that [relative; left untranslated] O/truth [noun, ms,
sg]/of [preposition]; the predicate of the nominal clause is ~-./Gods [noun, ms, pl]
~-./God of [noun, ms, sg, construct].

854
See GKC 143.

855
Rosenthal 80; see also KB
2
, 1947r; BDB, 1112r; and Holladay, 420r.

856
Bauer-Leander 89 i.

857
Baldwin, 95; for a similar point, see Montgomery, 181. The reader may take away from this
profession the notion that the theological pronouncements of political-military leaders should be weighed
by their deeds. To this end, take careful note of Nebuchadnezzars subsequent action in chapter three.


[138]

Grammar: Daniel 2:27c opens with an elaboration of the predicate Supreme God in the
previous line and a lord of kings followed by a second elaboration a revealer of mysteries.
858

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:47c is to round out the kings depiction of the
Supreme God, that is, this Supreme God is also a lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries.

The genitive construction lord of kings is used in contexts in the Ancient Near East where the
activity lord/lordship affects kings.
859
Accordingly, we could translate lord over kings. In the Ancient
Near East, this genitive was used of deities, such as Marduk, as well as of Egyptian Pharaohs.
860
The net
effect is that Nebuchadnezzar may be using language familiar to him. It may be the case that the king is
admitting that the God whom Daniel serves does indeed exercise a level of lordship or sovereignty over the
king. In and of itself, this statement should not be over-interpreted. That is, to confess that a deity, such as
Yahweh or even Marduk, exercised sovereignty over his kingship would not have been an inordinately
remarkable statement for Nebuchadnezzar.

Lexical: having dealt adequately with the first elaboration, we turn to the second a revealer
[g
e
l>] of mysteries [r~z].

As a revealer [g
e
l>], Yahweh makes things open and clear.
861
The king is acknowledging that
Yahweh has fully disclosed the content and the meaning of the dream.

The reader will note that Nebuchadnezzar uses reveal [g
e
l>] in 2:47c in the same way Daniel did
in 2:28 when Daniel witnessed to the king the origin of his interpretation. At that point, Daniel affirmed
that Yahweh was a revealer [g
e
l>] of mysteries [r~z]. To give Nebuchadnezzar his due, the king does
recall part of what Daniel said in 2:28, albeit the part that most concerned the king.

As a revealer of mysteries [r~z], the king is admitting that there are some circumstances that are
simply beyond human comprehension. Even the most advanced of the kings cabinet of advisors were
intellectually helpless in uncovering the gist of the kings dream [Daniel 2:10-11]. This impotence also
applied to Daniel, but Daniel knew where to go to find the answers [Daniel 2:18].
862

Daniel 2:47d since you were able to resolve this mystery is the final sentence in Daniel 2:47.

Grammar: Daniel 2:47d opens with the coordinating conjunction since followed by the main
verb you were able with the infinitive complement to resolve and the direct object of the infinitive
this mystery.
863

858
The first elaboration is a genitive construction: --/kings [noun, ms, pl]
./and a lord of [noun, ms, sg, construct]; the second elaboration is /mysteries [noun, ms,
pl] ~--/and a revealer of [Peal, participle, ms, sg].

859
Beekman and Callow, 258.

860
KB
2
, 1922r.

861
See the notes on Daniel 2:19 for the details of this verb.

862
For the gory details on the word mystery [r~z], see the notes on Daniel 2:18.

863
The main verb is --/you were able [Peal, perfect, 2
nd
, ms, sg]; the infinitive is
.---/to resolve [Peal, infinitive construct]; and the direct object is ~/mystery [definite
article, noun, ms, sg].


[139]

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:47d is signaled by the causal use of the coordinating
conjunction.
864
Nebuchadnezzars praise of God in 2:47b-c is based upon results: Daniel was able, through
Divine help, to resolve the kings mystery.

Daniel is Rewarded, 2:48

Daniel 2:48a Then, the king exalted Daniel is a line that is punctuated with a rebT
a
, pointing to a
brief pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:48a opens with the temporal adverb then followed by the subject of the
sentence the king with the indirect object Daniel and then the main verb exalted.
865

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:48a is to narrate what happened next in the scheme of
things.

Lexical: the operative term in the sentence is the main verb exalted [r
e
b>]. The Pael stem of
the verb signals causation.
866
The causal sense of this verb yields translations such as to make great or to
make high.
867
Holladay goes with to make great or simply to exalt.
868
Driver goes the heart of the matter,
noting that Nebuchadnezzar promoted or advanced Daniel.
869

The reader should weigh and consider, again, Daniels apparent willingness to be favored by a
pagan king, who advanced Daniel to an elevated pagan position [Daniel 2:49c-d]. Montgomery resurrects
the issue: Why does a good Jew, like Daniel, not refuse this pagan kings honors?
870
The fact of the matter
is that there is nothing explicit in the text to let us in on Daniels reasons. Montgomery notes there were
precedents in the Joseph story and the Mordecai story.
871
Fair enough, but this still leaves the reader in the
dark as to why or to what end Daniel accepts such rewards from a man like Nebuchadnezzar.

The reader may weigh and consider that Daniel is intentionally or unintentionally for that matter
showing evidence of Isaiah 49:22-23. In that passage, the prophet promises that Yahweh will demonstrate
His sovereignty over the presumptuously powerful nations of the earth [Isaiah 49:22]. Then, one of the
manifestations of the Divine sovereignty is that kings will bow down to Gods people, bowing with their

864
Bauer-Leander 70 g; for the lexical information on resolve, see the notes on Daniel 2:22, 28-
30.
865
The main verb is >/exalted [Pael, perfect, 3
rd
, ms].

866
See Van Pelt, 131.

867
KB
2
, 1977r.

868
Holladay, 420r.

869
Driver, 32.

870
Montgomery, 182.

871
Ibid.


[140]

face to the dust [Isaiah 49:23].
872
Daniel already understands the former point concerning Yahwehs
sovereignty [Daniel 2:20-23]. Possibly, for Daniel, a logical extension of Yahwehs sovereignty is, per
Isaiah 49:23, a kind of role reversal. Even the Exile, to which the Isaiah 49:22-23 refers, will not last
forever. Possibly Daniel understands that, owing to Yahwehs absolute sovereignty over the political-
military pretensions of exilic masters such as Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel need not fear this level of power, nor
evidently, refuse its rewards. Daniel serves Yahweh, not Nebuchadnezzar.

Daniel 2:48b and many great gifts he gave to him is a line that is punctuated with a z~qf q~tn,
pointing to a brief pause in the reading of the line. This line is a fulfillment of the promise that
Nebuchadnezzar made to Daniel in 2:6.
873

Daniel 2:48c and then, he made him ruler over the entire province of Babylon is a line that is
punctuated with an àtnach, indicating the main pause in the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:48c opens with the main verb and then, he made him ruler followed by
the direct object of Daniels rule, expressed in a prepositional phrase over the entire province of
Babylon.
874

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:48c is to carry forward the thread of the reward
narrative.

The syntactical-semantic thrust of the Haphel stem on the main verb he made him ruler
underlines the active/causative force in the verb.
875
The writer of Daniel intends to make
Nebuchadnezzars power to promote quite clear.

The prepositional phrase teases out the extent of Daniels rule over the entireprovince. The
sense of the noun entire [kl] means the whole of or the entirety of.
876
The extent of Daniels rule was
all-inclusive and absolute.

Lexical: The principle action that Nebuchadnezzar took was to [1] make Daniel the ruler over the
[2] entire province of Babylon.

[1] We have already met this verb [Daniel 2:38-39; see the notes there]. For now, we may review
and observe that this action granted Daniel political power. The Aramaic verb means to grant someone

872
For this point, see Goldingay, 52; Collins, Daniel, 172.
873
See the notes on Daniel 2:6 for the rewards that were offered and now given.

874
The main verb is ~-~/and then he made him ruler [Haphel, perfect, 3
rd
, ms, sg,
with a 3
rd
, ms, sg, suffix]; the range of Daniels rule is ->>/Babylon ./province of [noun,
fm, sg, construct]--/all of [noun, ms, sg, construct] -/over [preposition].

875

876
See Rosenthal 96; KB
2
, 1898r.


[141]

power over.
877
The term describes one who is a high official, one who has power, governance, dominion,
and authority.
878
Rosenthal translates the Haphel of this verb with to give someone power to.
879

The nominal form of this verb is the term used to describe Joseph as the ruler over Egypt in
Genesis 42:6. In both the Genesis passage and the Daniel 2:48c passage, the root describes one who has
political power and control over some realm.
880
The net effect is that Nebuchadnezzar granted Daniel
political power in his government; Daniel became an administrator of the policies of the Babylonian
kingdom.
881

Again, the reader wades into the thicket created by these rewards given to Daniel. In the case of
making Daniel a ruler, Nebuchadnezzar makes Daniel an administrator of the political policies of his,
Nebuchadnezzars, government. One can only imagine the temptations to make compromises to which this
promotion must have exposed Daniel. However, as far as the book of Daniel is concerned, Daniel remains
in the position of a political administrator throughout the time frame in the book. Not only does Daniel
refuse to refuse this political promotion, he stays with it.

Once more, the text of the book of Daniel is pretty much silent on how Daniel handles his power.
Only in the matter of a law regarding prayer in Daniel chapter six do we see Daniel responding, and he
responds by ignoring the law. All of this is part of the deep grass into which this rewards section leads
us.
882

[2] The king made Daniel a political power over the entire province [m
e
dTn>] of Babylon. The
m
e
dTn> is an administrative district within the Persian Empire, a satrap or a province.
883
Both BDB and
Holladay understand the m
e
dTn> to be a judicial district or an administrative district.
884

The m
e
dTn> as a judicial district would have been a prefecture where justice was administered.
Richard Schultz writes that the m
e
dTn> designates a province or administrative or judicial district.
885

Furthermore, to the extent that m
e
dTn> is derived from the verbal root dTn, the activity in view is
administrating binding judgment in a legal procedure.
886
From Daniels point of view, the joker in the pack
would have been that this was a judicial district duty-bound to administer the dictates of a pagan king,

877
KB
2
, 1995r.

878
Holladay, 423, on the nominal form of the root.

879
Rosenthal, 98.

880
Goldingay, 52.

881
Slotki, 20; Driver, 32.
882
We may speculate about Daniels life in government endlessly. However, given the text as we
have it before us, there are some facts that simply cannot be denied. First, service in government, even a
pagan government, is not refused. Second, one may surmise that Daniel sets himself up for compromise,
but that doesnt seem to deter him. He accepts the power and retains it throughout the time frame in the
book of Daniel. Third, the book of Daniel is almost totally silent on Daniels life in politics. The reader
may make what she/he will of this silence, but the books silence on Daniels governmental career is
deafening.

883
KB
2
, 1911-12.

884
BDB, 1088r; Holladay, 411r.

885
Richard Schultz, , in NIDOTTE [H1906].

886
G. Liedke, , in TLOT
1
, 335.


[142]

Nebuchadnezzar. Be this as it may, the fact of the matter is that Daniel is now in a governmental position
to rule as a prefect.
887

The observation above concerning the potential for compromise now takes on concrete form. One
is left to speculate, since the book of Daniel is silent on the matter, about making binding judgments in
legal procedures in a pagan legal system. More often than not, one speculates that Daniel found himself
between a rock and hard place in his function as a prefect.

Daniel 2:48d as well as chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon is the final sentence in Daniel
2:48.

Grammar: Daniel 2:48dopens with the subject of the line as well as chief prefect and
concludes with a prepositional phrase over all the wise men of Babylon.
888

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:48d is to round out the depiction of Daniels
administrative promotion.

Lexical: the term of primary interest is prefect [s
e
gan]. The lexicons are more or less uniform in
glossing s
e
gan with prefect or governor.
889
KoNhler-Baumgartner offers an Ancient Near Eastern Late
Babylonian cognate, sag~nu, that describes an office holder, a representative, or a governor. The lexicon
goes on to point out that in the ANE the term is never a spiritual title, but points to a deputy or most often a
provincial governor.
890

It would seem that the s
e
gan is an administrative position over this group of wise men. One may
assume that Daniel possessed managerial authority within this caste.

There would have been two challenges here for Daniel: [1] he is an outsider, and [2] the old
bugaboo of compromise once more emerges. This position, s
e
gan, would have meant that Daniel comes on
the scene, as a Jew, as an outsider to the cadre of advisors to the king. As Montgomery points out, this
group of wise men was essentially a closed shop, a caste.
891
Moreover, this elevation to the administrative
leadership of the caste of advisors to the king from Daniels point of view could involve many questions
of compromise.
892
Again, and this is a frustrating refrain, the reader is simply left in the dark as to just
how Daniel managed to navigate this potential minefield of compromise.

887
Montgomery, 182.
888
The subject of the line is .-/prefect [noun, ms, pl]>/chief [adjective, ms,
sg, construct]; the prepositional phrase is ->>/Babylon -W/wise men of [noun, ms, pl,
construct]--/all of [noun, ms, sg, construct] -/over [preposition].

889
KB
2
, 1937r; BDB, 1104r; Holladay, 414r.

890
KB
2
, 1937.

891
Montgomery, 183.

892
Baldwin, 95.


[143]

Daniel 2:49a Then, Daniel requested of the king is a line that is punctuated with a z~qf q~tn,
signaling a brief pause in the reading of the line. The line introduces a request that Daniel makes of the
king with Nebuchadnezzars compliance [Daniel 2:49b].

Daniel 2:49b and he [the king] appointed over the administration of the province of Babylon:
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego is a line that is punctuated with an àtnach, indicating the major
pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: Daniel 2:49b opens with the main verb and he appointed followed by a
prepositional phrase over the administration of the province of Babylon and concludes with the
recipients of the appointment Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego.
893

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:49b is to fill out the specifics of the request alluded to
in 2:48a, with word of the granting of the request.

The syntactical-semantic import of the Pael stem of the main verb he appointed is
causative.
894
Once more, the author of the book of Daniel carefully depicts the power that the king actually
has.

Lexical: there are two items of interest here: [1] appointed [m
e
n>] and [2] administration [!,bTd>].

The writer tells us that Nebuchadnezzar appointed [m
e
n>] these three to their positions. Both
BDB and Holladay render the verb to appoint in the Pael.
895
KoNhler-Baumgartner opts for install or
appoint.
896

There are no particular surprises here and the reader may understand the kings action at face value.

The writer also tells us that the king made these men administrators [!,bTd>]. This term points to
those who work in government service. KoNhler-Baumgartner glosses the noun [!,bTd>] with
administration.
897
BDB and Holladay follow suit.
898
Montgomery refers to their position as that of
subordinate officers.
899
Baldwin notes that this administrative work meant that their work was carried
out in the country districts of the province.
900

Daniel 2:49c but Daniel in the court of the king is the final statement in Daniel 2.

893
The main verb is ./and he appointed [Pael, perfect, 3
rd
, ms, sg].
894
Van Pelt, 131.

895

896
KB
2
, 1920r.

897
Ibid., 1942r.

898

899
Montgomery, 183.

900
Baldwin, 95.


[144]

Grammar: Daniel 2:49c opens with the subject of the nominal clause but Daniel and
concludes with the predicate of the nominal clause in the court of the king.

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:49c is to draw a contrast between the governmental
position of Daniel and that of his three comrades.
901
The fact that Daniels sphere of influence is
differentiated from that of his three comrades probably paves the way for chapter three, where Daniel does
not appear.
902

Lexical: the author tells us that Daniel was in the court [t
e
ra!] of Nebuchadnezzar. The noun
glossed court [t
e
ra!] is literally a gate, but is used to refer to the court of the king.
903
Montgomery notes
that court [t
e
ra!] means that Daniel was in the royal chancellery, and thus a member of the kings
cabinet.
904

Reflections on Daniel 2

The theme of the book of Daniel. Daniel 2 may well contain the essential themes of the book. In
Daniel 2:21-22, the reader is introduced to the two ideas that will be teased out in the rest of the book of
Daniel: [1] Yahweh is Lord of human geopolitical history (Daniel 2:21a-b); and [2] Divine wisdom is
required to understand how geopolitical events in human history achieve His ends (Daniel 2:21c-23).

Daniel enunciates these themes in his hymn of praise to the power and wisdom of Yahweh [Daniel
2:21-22].
905

[1] In Daniel 2:21a-b, the prophet shows us the overarching theme of the book of Daniel: Yahweh
is the Lord of human geopolitical history. As Daniel puts it, times and epochs change and Yahweh changes
them [Daniel 2:21a]. Moreover, political-military power-players come on the scene and then disappear,
since Yahweh deposes them as well as appoints them [Daniel 2:21b]. Both of these lines tease out
Yahwehs power: God alone is sovereign over the world of geopolitical affairs; God alone governs the
political fortunes, or misfortunes for that matter, of each and every nation on the face of the earth; and these
nations, when all is said and done, are utterly powerless to resist His Divine plan for human geopolitical
history. In one way or another, this theme dominates the book of Daniel.

The reader will immediately raise two questions: [1] Is this nothing more than determinism? And
[2] Just what does God expect His people to do when He is obviously in control?

To the question of determinism, the book of Daniel answers with a mystery. On the one hand, for
all intents and purposes, the human players in the book of Daniel seem to act on the basis of their own free
will. For example, in the next chapter, of his own free will, Nebuchadnezzar will erect a statue and demand
that everyone worship it. Indeed, when one reads the remainder of the book of Daniel, the various
protagonists are presented as acting out their own agendas.

On the other hand, the reader will also note that Yahweh still manages to accomplish His will. To
be sure, in Daniel 3, the reader watches as the will of Yahweh trumps the will of Nebuchadnezzar. Both
Nebuchadnezzar and the reader of Daniel 3 get the point: Yahweh is sovereign over the political
pretensions of political power-players. The idolatry of politics is no match for Yahweh.

901
For the conjunction waw used to signal an adversative line, see Bauer-Leander 70 p.

902
On this point, see Baldwin, 95-96.

903
KB
2
, 2010r.

904
Montgomery, 183.
905
See the notes on pages 49-65, above.

[145]

So, here is the mystery: The book of Daniel presents the reader with an enigma. On the one hand,
man is a free moral agent; on the other hand, Yahweh manages to completely accomplish His Divine
agenda in spite of or in concert with mans moral freedom to act. The paradox is that mankind pursues its
own agendas, often ignoring God, while realizing Gods Lordship of human history into the bargain.

To the question of the response of the faithful, the book of Daniel is surprisingly clear. Here in
Daniel two, Daniel uses the wisdom that God gives him to clarify Nebuchadnezzars role in the geopolitical
scheme of things. Anticipating a bit, in this back and forth between Yahweh and political power-players,
Gods people do have a role to play. In Daniel chapters three and six, the heroes of the book resist. In
chapter eleven of the book, the wise among the people lead many to understanding. What is more, in
Daniel 12, the faithful lead many to righteousness. The student of the book of Daniel would do well to
read the book for the kinds of responses that characterize the faithful people of God in a world where God
is unquestionably sovereign.

[2] In Daniel 2:21c-23, the prophet tells us how he, and we, can know what God is doing among
the geopolitical elite: Yahweh alone can provide wisdom into and understanding of His sovereign Lordship
of human history. As Daniel writes, Yahweh provides wisdom [2:21c-d, 22a, 23a-d] because Yahweh is
wisdom [2:22b-c]. We consider this latter point first.

It is obvious that Daniel 2 is intent on making the point that Yahweh is wisdom. Daniel 2 makes
this point negatively and positively.

Negatively, Daniel 2 contrasts the wisdom of God with the wisdom of men, and the latter comes
up short. In the dialogue between Nebuchadnezzar and his top advisors [2:3-13], the king and his advisors
reach an impasse [2:8-11].
906
The net effect is that the kings top political gurus throw in the towel; the
interpretive assignment the king has given them [reveal the content and meaning of his dream] is utterly
beyond them. They are in over their heads and they say so: There is not a man upon earth who is able to
make known this matter for the king [2:10].

The reader of the book of Daniel can infer that one of the books key themes is the intellectual
bankruptcy of even the most gifted trend spotters. Daniel 2:8-11 presents the reader with the fact that some
matters of geopolitical import are simply well beyond mortal grasp. There comes a time when men can no
longer read the tea leaves of geopolitical goings-on. At such moments, Daniel, and others like him, will
step in and show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is a source of wisdom about which the dominant
political power-players and their trend spotters know nothing.

Positively, Daniel affirms that Yahweh is wisdom [2:22b-c].
907
To make a long story short, only
Yahweh possesses absolute intellectual mastery of the unknown [2:22b], and only Yahweh possesses
unrestricted omniscience [2:22c].

One of the lessons that the reader of Daniel quickly learns is that only Yahweh knows what is
hidden in obscurity [2:22b]. Only Yahweh is intimately acquainted with the details of what utterly baffles
the best and the brightest among the kings top cabinet advisors. Only Yahweh understands, differentiates
among the details, and grasps the overall picture of that which to man is complete confusion.

Ours is an age that seems to cling to the hope that the best and the brightest of this worlds
diplomats and negotiators can navigate the geopolitical unknowns that threaten to explode right before our
eyes. Truly, the blind are leading the blind; only when men decide to throw in the towel and rely on
Yahweh will peace ever emerge in this ever-increasingly self-destructive age.

906
See the notes above on pages 22-30.

907

[146]

Another of the lessons that the reader of Daniel learns is that only Yahweh possesses unrestricted
omniscience. Where there is darkness, and darkness is in abundant supply on this planet, light dwells with
Yahweh [2:22c]. In the final analysis, light permanently resides with Yahweh, which means that insight
into the comings and goings of political times, of epochs and political leaders, resides solely with God.

The reader of Daniel would do well to weigh and consider what Yahwehs unrestricted
omniscience means for reading the book of Daniel as a whole. That is, for far too long, apocalyptic
enthusiasts have read Daniel for its alleged signposts of the end of human history. When this nation
overcomes that nation, the end is at hand seems to be how the book is read. Indeed, the abundant footnotes
to this end in many English versions encourage this kind of reading. However, the student may wish to
read Daniel for insight into Gods ways in human geopolitical history. The modern reader or
preacher/teacher of Daniel would do well to lift out the patterns in history that shed light on Gods ways in
human history. In this way, as Daniel does in Daniel 2, the glory, as well as the fear, is focused on God,
not his messenger.

Now, if it is the case that Yahweh is wisdom [2:22b-c], then it is also the case that Yahweh does
not hoard this wisdom, rather Yahweh provides wisdom [2:21c-d, 22a, 23a-d].

In Daniel 2:21c-d, the prophet tells us that Yahweh provides wisdom to the wise [2:21c] in the
form of understanding to those who know discernment [2:21d].
908
There are two points to reflect upon
here: [1] Yahweh does provide wisdom, and [2] Yahweh provides wisdom to those who are prepared to
receive it.

[1] That Yahweh provides wisdom is, as we have noted, a provision that is an expression of His
grace. In the case of Daniel, the prophet seems to have acknowledged his own intellectual confusion and
implored Yahweh to provide compassion concerning this mystery [2:18a]. Thereupon, the mystery was
revealed [2:19a]. Yahweh provides wisdom.

The benefit of reading the book of Daniel for its insight into Gods ways in human geopolitical
history is the provision of wisdom. The reader of the book of Daniel can begin to appreciate the patterns in
history, the changing of times and epochs, thus bringing the reader of Daniel wisdom and insight into Gods
ways in human history. As much as anything else, when one spends much reflective time with Daniel, the
learner comes away with the wisdom that discerns that God is really in control of things, even as they are.

What is more, Yahweh provides wisdom. The reader can make what she/he chooses to make of
the fact that the book of Daniel is not located in the Masoretic text among the prophetic books of the Old
Testament but among the writings. Daniel was located alongside of Job, the Psalms, and the Proverbs. It
might be useful to follow those who placed the book among the writings and read Daniel for its wisdom,
not its imaginary pointers of the end of human time.

To this end, the reader should appreciate Daniels preoccupation with wisdom, with the vocabulary
of wisdom and with understanding.
909
Those with understanding [maskTlTm] are the insightful among the
people of the world, people who discern Gods ways in human history. These kinds of people are a major
focus of Daniel [Daniel 1:4, 17; 9:13, 22, 25; 11:33, 35 (crucial passages in this regard); 12:3 (crucial), 10
(crucial)]. If Daniel is so concerned to communicate the ascendency of wisdom among the people of God,
then it would seem that the student of Daniel should read the book for its wisdom.

[2] Daniel notes that Yahweh provides wisdom for those who are prepared to receive it. That is,
Yahweh provides wisdom to the wise [2:21c] and understanding to those who know discernment [2:21d].
The principle seems to be: Those who diligently have demonstrated a willingness to pay the price for Gods

908

909

[147]

wisdom are ultimately blessed with the fruit of wisdom. The wisdom provided to the wise is insight
provided to those who have demonstrated personal attentiveness, by listening and pondering Divine
instruction, such as is found in the book of Daniel. The wisdom provided to those who know discernment is
insight provided to those who have put their ability to discern to work in the arduous effort to search out
Gods ways in human history. The short and the long of it is that these are the people who pay the price to
understand what God is doing in His world.

The upshot of preparedness as a prerequisite for ever-increasing levels of wisdom is that wisdom
is not the product of intellectual or spiritual indolence. The reader of the book of Daniel will have to work
hard to mine the rich ore of wisdom it contains. But, the effort is well worth it.

Reader's Guidebook For Daniel 2,1-49

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Reader's Guidebook For Daniel 2,1-49

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Readers Guidebook for Daniel 2:1-49 Loren Lineberry, 2014

Potrebbero piacerti anche