Reader's Guidebook for Daniel 2,1-49

Reader’s Guidebook for Daniel 2:1-49 Loren Lineberry, 2014

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 Guidebook’s 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, Kohler-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.

[1]


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 king’s advisors to reveal and explain the dream [pg. 10-33] 2:14-16 The report of Daniel’s intervention [centerpiece] [pg. 34-40] 2:17-24 The report of Yahweh’s 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 king’s 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 king’s 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.

[2]


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 Nebuchadnezzar’s 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 zqf qtn, signaling a slight pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: the temporal line opens with a prepositional phrase3 – in the second year – followed by a second prepositional phrase4 – 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 [proper name] [preposition, noun, fm, sg, construct].

5 For the syntax of the circumstantial clause, see J.C.L. Gibson, Davidson’s 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 O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 39.2.3b [hereafter abbreviated IBHS].

[3]


The syntax of the prepositional phrase – in the second year – signals a temporal function. Indeed, the preposition – be – 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 [malkt] 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 verb9 – 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. Naud 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 KB1 for volume 1 [-] and KB2 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, “malkt, (H 4887)” by Philip J. Nel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001; CD-ROM); hereafter abbreviated NIDOTTE.

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

10 IBHS 10.2.1g.

11 GKC § 117 p-q; see also Paul Joon, 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.

[4]


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 zqf qtn, signaling the next pause after the àtnach.

Grammar: Daniel 2:1c opens with the finite verb14 – 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 Nebuchadnezzar’s 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 [pam] 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 king’s 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 doesn’t help much. In the Hebrew Bible, the ruach can be a general term for one’s senses or one’s mind, or one’s 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 anthropological

13 See Gary V. Smith, “chlam (H 2731),” in NIDOTTE. 14 The finite verb in the line is [waw consecutive imperfect, Hithpael, 3rd, fm, sg]. 15 See IBHS 33.2.1a-b; Gibson § 78.

16 IBHS 26.2.

17 See “Confusion, agitation,” in NIDOTTE.

18 KB2, 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 KB2, 1199.

21 Holladay, 334.

[5]


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 verb23 – his sleep – followed by the verb24 – 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 Yahweh’s sustaining protection [Psalm 3:5-6]. More immediate to Nebuchadnezzar’s 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 Kohler-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 [hy] 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 TLOT3, 1211.

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

24 Fled actually translates the verb with the following prepositional phrase; the verb is [Niphal, perfect, 3rd, 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 KB1, 244r; Holladay, 79r.

29 BDB, 227r.

[6]


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 zqf qtn, 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 words30 – called for – followed by the subject of the sentence – the king – and then the objects31 – 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 [qr] 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 [ap] are another class of high level royal court advisors. The noun [ap] is an Akkadian loanword from ipu again indicating those who were expert in reading and interpreting strange signs. In effect, the ap/conjurers were incantation priests who were part of the diplomatic divination

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

31 Those who were summoned were: [preposition, noun, ms, pl, magicians] [conjunctive waw, preposition, noun, ms, pl, conjurers] [conjunctive waw, preposition, noun, ms, pl, sorcerers] [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; 9:112.

35 BDB, 355r. 36John J. Collins, Daniel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 138.

37 Ibid.

[7]


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 [kap] point to a class of professionals who used incantations and spells to manipulate natural powers and influence outcomes.39 The practice of these kap/sorcerers included spells, incantations, the use of charms and amulets, and special rituals.40 The Hebrew Bible mentions the kap 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 [kadm] 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.

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

39 See Malcolm J.A. Horsnell, “kap,” 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.

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

[8]


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 component44 – 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 king’s 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 [ngad]. 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 doesn’t 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 king’s 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 monarch’s 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 Nebuchadnezzar’s 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 KB1, 666.

[9]


Daniel 2:3-13 – The Failure of the King’s 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 problemNebuchadnezzar – 2:3Advisors – 2:4

Second dialogue – Daniel 2:5-7 – The king clarifies what he wantsNebuchadnezzar – 2:5-6Advisors – 2:7

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

Historical conclusion – Daniel 2:12-13 – The outcome: DeathNebuchadnezzar’s 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 king’s 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 dream’s interpretation is the promise to the king.

48 Sweeney, 518.

[10]


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 verb49, the addressees, and the subject – then, the king said to them. From here, the sentence tells us what the king said initially, fronting the object50 – 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 king’s opening speech – a dream I had – serves to reactivate and remind the reader of the focus of the utterance – this dream.53 From the king’s 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 king’s opening speech.

Grammar: the utterance opens with the verb55 – and … is disturbed – followed by the subject – my mind – with an infinitive clause56 – 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, 3rd, ms, sg].

50 Dream glosses [noun, ms, sg].

51 The verb is [Qal, perfect, 1st, 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, 3rd, fm, sg]. 56 The infinitive clause has an infinitive – [preposition, Qal, infinitive construct] – with the

direct object of the infinitive – [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.

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.

[11]


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 pam, 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 – yda – 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 verb62 – 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 8th century BC on. Finally, this Official Aramaic is the Aramaic preserved in the Bible.64

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 Ren Pter-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 KB1, 390-91.

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

63 IBHS 33.2.1c.

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

[12]


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 Daniel’s 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, Yahweh’s 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 God’s sovereignty over the politics of man:68

A. Four empires and God’s coming kingdom [Dan. 2] B. Trial by fire and God’s 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 lion’s den and God’s deliverance [Dan 6]A´. Four empires and God’s everlasting kingdom [Dan 7]

Daniel 2:4b “O, king, live forever!” is an utterance that is punctuated with a zqf qtn, indicating a pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: the utterance opens with the addressee – O, king – followed by a prepositional phrase used temporally69 – forever – and then the action word70 – 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 [Pe’al, imperative, ms, sg].

71 Rosenthal § 41, 43, and Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander, Grammatil des Biblisch-Aramäisschén (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1962), § 84 b.

[13]


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 verb72 – 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 verb74 – the interpretation – followed by the main verb75 – 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 Pe’al, the second a Pa’el. 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 [per]. The lexical background of per 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 [per] of anything? As a general principle, Qoheleth seems to be of the opinion that no one knows the meaning [per] of anything. These Babylonian advisors are destined to discover the same thing.

The Aramaic cognate [per] used in Daniel 2:4d appears frequently in Daniel.78 The usages of per 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.

72 The verb is an imperative – [Pe’al, 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 [Pa’el, imperfect, 1st, c, pl]. 76 Bauer-Leander § 70 b.

77 KB2, 982.

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.

[14]


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

An interpretation [per] is associated with what is trustworthy in Daniel 2:45. The writer uses a Haph’el 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, per 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 per is within the scope of wisdom. More to the point, Nebuchadnezzar links Daniel’s skills in per with the spirit of the holy gods, presuming that Daniel has divine sources for his skills in per. 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 per with knowing or with understanding the meaning of this other-worldly event. Later in chapter 5, Belshazzar links per 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 per 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 riddles81 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 [per].

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 problem to be unraveled. We may infer that solving difficulties, such as the one in Daniel 2, is also part and parcel with per.

Then, in Daniel 7:16, the interpretation [per] that Daniel asks for is equivalent to truth [ytsb]. When Daniel seeks an interpretation that is ytsb, he is asking for an interpretation that is certain, true, and

79 KB2, 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 [KB², 1871r], Holladay, 405r, also opts for to make known, to interpret. The noun glossed riddles points to something that is closed up tightly [KB², 1809], thus a puzzle, riddle [KB², 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 [KB², 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 untied by counter-magic [259]. Montgomery ultimately writes that our noun in this sentence may be translated problems, difficulties [259].

[15]


irrefutable.83 Bauer and Leander gloss ytsb with the German term – fest – which means solid, stable, firm, definite or fixed.84 The net effect is that, for Daniel at least, a per 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 Nebuchadnezzar’s dream.

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

To begin with, the per brings with it an aura of divine support; there is a supernatural element awaited in per. 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 per 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 per may be noted regarding Daniel 2:4d. That is, these members of Nebuchadnezzar’s inner circle are promising a per that is insightful as it would be for Belshazzar later [Daniel 5]. They are undertaking to provide a per 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 per. Daniel 2:4b sets the storyline on the path to the failure of these advisors and prepares the way for the success of God’s man to truly explain all. Indeed, the centerpiece of Daniel 2 [2:17-24] will be just that – Yahweh’s 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 Pa’el 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 [chw]. 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.

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

83 KB2, 1892.

84 Bauer-Leander § 51 e.

85 KB2, 1893.

86Goldingay, 33.

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

88 KB2, 1871.

[16]


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 subject89 – the command – followed by a prepositional phrase – from me – followed by a modal assertive adverb90 – 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 KB2 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 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 [mllh] may be read in one of two ways. That is, command/ mllh may be translated in the sense of a word that is either spoken or written, or in the more general sense

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

90 The predicate term is [noun, fm, sg, determined (per KB2, 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.

93 KB2, 1808r.

[17]


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 mllh/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 psq, signaling the end of the verse. Within this utterance, there is a zqf qtn 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 verb100 – you do not inform me of – with the two direct objects – the dream and its interpretation; then, we have the first consequence of failure101 – you will be dismembered – and then the second102 – and your houses turned to rubble.

94 KB2, 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 KB2, 1808, for this option.

96 Holladay, 396r. 97 KB2, 1808.

98 BDB, 1079r.

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

100 The verb is [Haph’el, imperfect, 2nd, ms, pl, with a 1st, cs, suffix] [negative].

101 You will be dismembered renders a direct object, [noun, ms, pl] and a verb, [Hithpa’el, imperfect, 2nd, ms, pl].

102 Your houses turned to rubble glosses [Hithpa’el, imperfect, 3rd, ms, pl] [noun, fm, sg] [copulative waw, noun, ms, pl, construct with a 2nd, ms, pl, suffix].

[18]


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 Haph’el 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 [newl]. When used with the Hithpa’el of the verb we have here [ym], the collocation takes on the sense of to pull down and turn into a dump for waste [newl].110 As the reader may note, the entire penalty takes on an element of personal humiliation. Indeed, Holladay observes that newl 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 zqf qtn, indicating a slight pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: the sentence commences with the conjunction112 – but, if – followed by the direct objects of the main verb – the dream and its interpretation – and then the main verb113 – you make known.

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

104 Bauer-Leander § 76 k; Rosenthal § 99.

105 Rosenthal § 130.

106 Holladay, 407r.


108 KB2, 1858r.

109 Montgomery, 146.

110 KB2, 1928r.

111 Holladay, 413r.

112 The opening conjunction is .

113 The main verb is [Haph’el, imperfect, 2nd, ms, pl].

[19]


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 Haph’el 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 verb117 – gifts, a reward, and great honor – followed by the main verb118 – 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 king’s largesse.

Lexical: of obvious interest is the nature of the king’s munificence. The gift [matnh] 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 matnh in 5:18 suggests both personal property and promotion.

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

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 [adjective, ms, sg] [noun, ms, sg].

118 You will receive renders [Pa’el, imperfect, 2nd, ms, pl].

119 Bauer-Leander § 51 r glosses Geschenk, as does KB2, 1924r.

120 See KB2, 1924-25r.

121 Rosenthal, 90.

122 KB2, 1893r.

123 Holladay, 408r.

[20]


There is, however, a joker in the pack when it comes to yeqr/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, yeqr/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 yeqr, the genuine article in terms of royal majesty – the Messiah. For now, we must be content to read of the pretenders to yeqr, 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 verb124 – declare to me.

Syntax: the syntactical relation of 2:6c to the previous context is signaled by the conjunction – lhn. 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.

Let’s 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 per.

To begin with, the interpretation/ per 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.

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 per/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.

124 The verb is a directive – [Haph’el, imperative, ms, pl, with a 1st, 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.

129 Ibid., 219.

[21]


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 tiphh, 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 request130 – 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 king’s 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,(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;

130 Let relate glosses [Pe’al, imperfect, 3rd, ms, sg, jussive sense]. 131 On the jussive in Biblical Aramaic, see Rosenthal § 108; Bauer-Leander § 78 r-s.

[22]


(xiii) [Justification for (xii)] inasmuch as no great king or ruler has ever asked a matter like thisof 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 zqf qtn, 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 zqf qtn 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 expression132 – most certainly – followed by the main verb133 – I know – followed by a subordinate clause134 – that you are buying time.

Syntax: the syntax of the opening assertion of Nebuchadnezzar features a statement of certitude on the king’s part. Literally, the phrase – most certainly – is a prepositional phrase that may be translated of a certainty.135 The sense of the adjective [yatstsb] 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.

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.

132 The adverbial expression is [adjective, ms, sg] [preposition]. 133 I know renders [1st, sg, pronoun] [Pe’al, participle, ms, sg].

134 The subordinate clause is [Pe’al, participle, ms, pl] [2nd, ms, pl, pronoun] [noun, ms, sg, determined].


136 KB2, 1893r.


[23]


Lexical: of lexical moment is the heart of Nebuchadnezzar’s assertion – you are buying time. The sense of the participle [zebn] 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 phrase140 – inasmuch as – followed by the finite verb141 – 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 reba.

Grammar: Daniel 2:9a opens with a relative particle – namely that – followed by a subordinating conjunction used to signal a condition145 – if – then the direct object of the main verb – the dream – followed by the main verb – you do not make known – and then a numeral146 – one – with the predicate of the nominal clause – verdict for you.

138 BDB, 1091r; Bauer-Leander § 81 c; KB2, 1863r.

139 Holladay, 404r.

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

141 You have seen translates [Pe’al, perfect, 2nd, 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 KB2, 1872r; Holladay, 405r.

145 The conditional sentence as a whole is: [Haph’el, imperfect, 2nd, ms, pl, with a 1st, cs, suffix] [negative particle] [definite article, noun, fm, sg] [particle, conjunction].

146 The nominal clause is: [noun, fm, sg, construct with a 2nd, ms, pl, suffix] [pronoun, 3rd, fm, sg] [numeral, fm, sg].

[24]


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-à-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 dtkn with judgment against you.152

The commentaries shed some light on dtkn. Hartman and Di Lella translate – there can only be one fate for you.153 Slotki renders dtkn 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 zqf qtn, signaling a slight pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: the sentence opens with the object of the main verb155 – but, an utterance – followed by two appositional nouns describing this utterance156 – false and corrupt – followed by the main verb157 – you have agreed beforehand – and wrapped up with an infinitive clause – to speak to me.

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.

147 Rosenthal § 86; Montgomery, 149-50; KB2, 1851r. 148 On the use of hn in a conditional line, see Rosenthal § 86; Bauer-Leander § 70 k. 149 Andersen, Sentence, 31.


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: [conjunction, Pe’al, passive participle, fm, sg] [noun,

fm, sg].

157 The verb is: [Haph’el, perfect, 2nd, ms, pl].

158 Bauer-Leander § 70 p.

159 KB2, 1862r; BDB, 1091r.

[25]


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 [ echth] 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 [hzmntn] may be glossed to come to an understanding;168 or agree together;169 or better – to come to a decision.170

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 verb171 – 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.

160 Bauer-Leander § 93 c. 161 Gibson § 39 e. 162 KB2, 1896r; BDB, 1096r.

163 KB2, 1896. 164 KB2, 1992r; BDB, 1115r; Holladay, 442r.

165 Rosenthal, 98.


167 Slotki, 9.

168 KB2, 1865r.

169 BDB, 1091r. 170 Holladay, 404r. 171 Conditions glosses [definite article, noun, ms, sg]; change glosses [Hithpa’el,

imperfect, 3rd, ms, sg]. 172 Bauer-Leander § 109 l; see also Rosenthal § 86; KB2, 1943r; BDB, 1105r.

[26]


Lexical: the noun glossed conditions [`ddn] 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 zqf qtn, 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 king’s dialogue.

Advisors, 2:10-11

As noted previously, in the king’s 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 zqf qtn, 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 zqf qtn, 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

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 Nebuchadnezzar’s request.

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

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].


176 Bauer-Leander § 98 t.

[27]


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 conjunction180 – 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 Pe’al 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 zqf qtn, indicating a brief pause in the reading of the line.

Grammar: the sentence opens with the subject184 – 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

177 The direct object is: [definite article, noun, ms, sg] [noun, fm, sg, construct]; the verbal construction is: [Haph’el, infinitive construct/to make known] [Pe’al, imperfect, 3rd, ms].

178 For this use of the conjunction – d – 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: [Pe’al, perfect, 3rd, ms].

181 Bauer-Leander § 70 h; Rosenthal § 86. 182 Bauer-Leander § 76 d. 183 Baldwin, 88.

184 The subject of 2:11a is: [disjunctive waw, definite article, noun, fm, sg]; the relative clause is: [Pe’al, 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.

[28]


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 advisor’s depiction of the nature of Nebuchadnezzar’s demand; it is difficult [yaqqr]. The lexicons offer what is rare or what is difficult.187 The Septuagint translator uses bars, 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 life’s 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

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-à-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 advisor’s portion of the third dialogue.

186 IBHS 8.4.2a.


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: [disjunctive waw, adjective, ms, sg]; the negated subject is: [noun, ms, sg, construct with a 3rd, ms, suffix] ; and the relative clause is: [definite article, noun, ms, sg] [preposition] [Pa’el, imperfect, 3rd, ms, 3rd, fs, suffix] [conjunction].

191 For the use of the waw to intensify, see KB2, 1862.

[29]


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 [lhn].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 [medrhn] and mortal flesh [br].

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.

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.

192 The opening exceptive phrase is: [noun, ms, pl] [conjunction]; the relative clause is: [noun, ms, sg] [negative particle] [definite article, noun, ms, sg] [preposition] [noun, ms, sg, construct with a 3rd, ms, pl] [conjunction].

193 Bauer-Leander § 111 d; Rosenthal § 85.

194 KB2, 1911r; BDB, 1087r.

195 KB2, 1840r; BDB, 1085r.

196 Oppenheim, 221.

[30]


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 king’s 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 king’s rage is unpacked in Daniel 2:11, his advisor’s 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 Pe’al 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 advisor’s debacle. He is angry, furious, and exceedingly so.

Angry [bens] 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

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: [Pe’al, perfect, 3rd, ms, sg] and [Pe’al, perfect, 3rd, ms, sg].

198 See Rosenthal § 86; Bauer-Leander § 70 h.

199 See Rosenthal § 99; Bauer-Leander § 76 d. 200 Comrie, 19.

201 KB2, 1836r; Rosenthal, 80; BDB, 1084; Holladay, 400.

202 LSJ, 1657.

[31]


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 [qetsp] 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 – qetsap – 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 king’s fury; his rage may be goaded by angst.

This last point may be a reason why the Old Greek Version of the Septuagint renders qetsp 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 king’s rage, based on both linguistic and contextual grounds [2:1].

Finally, the writer tacks on an adverb to furious [qetsp], noting that the king was exceedingly [gg] 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

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 [chkkm], which appears for the first time here in the Aramaic section of Daniel.211 For the most part, the use of chkkm/wise men in the

203 Ibid., 810.

204 Gale Struthers, “,” in NIDOTTE. 205 LSJ, 1378.

206 Ibid., 1246.


208 BDB, 1113.

209 Thus, he gave orders to destroy glosses a finite verb – [simple waw, Pe’al, perfect, 3rd, ms, sg] – followed by an infinitive construct – [preposition, Haph’el, infinitive construct]; the prepositional phrase is: .

210 Bauer-Leander § 79 c. 211 The noun [chkkm] 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.

[32]


Aramaic section of Daniel references a professional class of men who possess and can manipulate occult knowledge.212 For the most part, Daniel uses chkkm 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 chkkm/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 chkkm/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 verb213 – 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

Daniel 2:14-16 – The Report of Daniel’s Intervention

Structure: the structure of Daniel 2:14-16 focuses on Daniel’s 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

212 On this point, see BDB, 1093r, as well as KB2, 1875r.

213 The main verb is [waw, Pe’al, perfect, 3rd, ms.

214 See Bauer-Leander § 79 c.

[33]


B – Daniel inquires – 2:15A – 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 Daniel’s 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 Daniel’s 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 Daniel’s 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.

Daniel 2:14a Immediately, Daniel spoke with tactful consideration is a line that is punctuated with a zqf qtn, indicating a slight pause in the reading of the line.

[34]


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 Daniel’s response is significant – with tactful [em] consideration [ts].

The noun glossed consideration denotes advice or counsel under normal circumstances,219 but this gloss doesn’t 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 Daniel’s 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 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.

215 The adverb is /immediately; the main verb is /spoke [Haph’el, perfect, 3rd, 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 KB2, 1945.

220 LSJ, 325.

221 KB1, 867.

222 KB2, 1885r; BDB, 1094r.

223 Holladay, 406r.

224 Longman, 78.

[35]


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. KB2 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 [abbchayy]. 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

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 zqf qtn, pointing to a brief pause in the reading of the line.

225 The prepositional phrase is [preposition, proper noun]; the appositional construction consists of: [definite article, noun, ms, sg] [conjunction] [definite article, noun, ms, pl] [adjective, ms, sg, construct].

226 For this use of le, see BDB, 1098.

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

228 KB2, 1824.

229 Rosenthal, 79.

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

231 KB2, 1883r.

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



[36]


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 [ll]. 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.

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 – is…so 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 – is…so 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

235 The verbal construction is [waw, Pe’al, participle, ms, sg] [Pe’al, participle, ms, sg]; the appositional component is [definite article, noun, ms, sg] [conjunction] [definite article, adjective, ms, sg].


237 Bauer-Leander § 93 c. 238 Montgomery, 156.

239 KB2, 1995-96; see also BDB, 1115r.

240 Holladay, 423.

241 Philip J. Nel, “ll,” in NIDOTTE. 242 The interrogative marker is ; the verbal component is [Haph’el, participle, fm, sg]. 243 Bauer-Leander § 103 a.

[37]


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 boss’s 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 nation’s 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.

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

244 BDB, 1093r.

245 KB2, 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.

252 The adverb is ; the main verb is [Haph’el, perfect, 3rd, ms].

253 Rosenthal § 85, 89.

[38]


Lexical: when the writer tells us that Arioch made known the situation to Daniel, the Haph’el 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 àtnach, pointing to the major pause in the reading of the line.

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 Daniel’s part.260

Daniel 2:16b that a period of grace he would grant him is a sentence that is punctuated with a zqf qtn, 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

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 [zemn] suggests a postponement.263

254 Rosenthal § 99; Bauer-Leander § 36 h; 76 k.

255 See KB2, 1889; BDB, 1095 [to inform].


257 The verbal construction is: [Pe’al, perfect, 3rd, ms, sg] [Pe’al, perfect, 3rd, ms, sg].

258 For this use of the waw on /so, Daniel, see KB2, 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: [Pe’al, imperfect, 3rd, ms].

262 Bauer-Leander § 109 d.

263 Holladay, 404r.

[39]


Essentially, the zemn 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 – simnu – indicates a deadline.266 Deadline comports well with a specified time and a fixed time. As Anthony Tomasino notes, zemn suggests a predetermined period of time for some event to occur.267

Accordingly, while the Guidebook translates zemn with a period of grace, which from Daniel’s 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 to…the 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, Daniel’s faith in Yahweh stands out in clear relief in this line.

264 BDB, 1091r.

265 KB2, 1866r.

266 Borger, 271.

267 Anthony Tomasino, “zemn,” in NIDOTTE.

268 The verbal component is an infinitive phrase: [preposition, Haph’el, infinitive construct]. 269 Bauer-Leander § 85 e; Gibson § 107.

[40]


Daniel 2:17-24 – The Report of Yahweh’s 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 wisdom of 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] Immediately, 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)] Immediately, the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a night vision (vi) [Immediate outcome of (v)] Immediately, Daniel praised the God of heaven(vii) [Daniel’s 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] He changes times and epochs, deposing kings and appointing kings(xi) [Second reason for the benediction] He provides wisdom to the wise, and understanding to

those who know discernment(xii) [Explication of (xi)] He reveals deep and hidden things(xiii) [Explication of (xii)] He knows 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(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.”

[41]


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 Daniel’s 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 Daniel’s 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 name of Yahweh be praised for ever and ever [2:20b]Wisdom and power – His [2:20c]

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

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

He provides wisdom [2:21c] [In praise of His wisdom]He reveals 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

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.

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.

[42]


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.

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 [mll] simply points to matters as they stand or the affair at hand.277

273 The adverb is ; the main verb is [Pe’al, perfect, 3rd, ms].

274 See Rosenthal § 89; Bauer-Leander § 68 a.

275 The appositional term is [noun, ms, pl, construct with a 3rd, ms, suffix]; the diect object is [definite article, noun, fm, sg]; and the main verb is [Haph’el, perfect, 3rd, ms].

276 On this point, see Baldwin, 89.

277 BDB, 1100.

[43]


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 [be] is straightforward, indicating to seek or to request.282 An Akkadian cognate means to search.283 The lexical point is that these 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 [rcham] is in the plural in Aramaic, suggesting an intensive plural.284 This intensification may imply abundant compassion or exceptional compassion, possibly thorough compassion.285

278 The infinitive phrase is: [preposition, Pe’al, infinitive construct] [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.


281 Baldwin, 89-90. 282 KB2, 1836.

283 Ibid.

284 Bauer-Leander § 87 e, j.

285 GKC § 124 e.

[44]


As a quick check of the lexicons will show, rcham 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/ rcham is an emotional term in the Old Testament, as when Joseph was overcome with rcham upon seeing his long-lost brothers [Genesis 43:30].

When Yahweh shows rcham, 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 rcham, 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 rcham/compassion that goes beyond what one deserves or may reasonably expect that informs Daniel’s prayer of confession in Daniel 9:9, 18.

Yahweh’s rcham/compassion is tantamount to His faithful love, which has been one of His chief attributes eternally [Psalm 25:6], and it is this rcham/compassion that rests over everything that Yahweh has made [Psalm 145:9]. What is more, this Divine rcham/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 rcham/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 rcham/compassion rests over them and even guards them. After all, all of them are members of the Covenant with Yahweh. Obviously, rcham/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 [rz]. Most of the English versions translate rz with mystery or secret or secret mystery. Whatever rz may mean, one thing is certain: For all of the wise men of Babylon, this mystery is beyond human comprehension.

The lexicons translate rz with secret or simply mystery.287 Later, in the Qumran material, rz would be used to identify “an enigma that can only be interpreted by God’s revelation and particularly for God’s hidden purposes in history, despite its sin.”288 The sense of God’s hidden purposes in history does seem to fit the context well here. Indeed, the remainder of the uses of rz 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].

286 KB2, 1981; BDB, 933.

287 See KB2, 1980r; Rosenthal § 189; BDB, 1112r; Holladay, 421.

288 Longman, 47.

[45]


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 Haph’el stem of the verb suggests causation;291the implication is that these four had no intention whatsoever of submitting to capital punishment.

The reader should note the prepositional phrase. The preposition [m] 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 Pe’al stem, bad may be translated to slay; in the Haph’el, 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 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.

289 The subordinating conjunction is /so that; the main verb is [Haph’el, imperfect, 3rd, ms, pl]; and the prepositional phrase uses the preposition with the object of the preposition in the form of a construct chain: [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 KB2, 1950.

293 Ibid., 1806. 294 The adverb is /immediately; the second prepositional phrase is [definite article, noun,

ms, sg] [preposition, definite article, noun, ms, sg]/in a/the night vision; and the main verb is [Pe’il, perfect, 3rd, ms, sg].

[46]


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 [be] is used in this case to signal the means or method of the revelation.298 The means of insight differs appreciably from that of Daniel’s 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 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.

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; KB2, 1830 [through or by means of].

299 For this use of this noun in this sense, see KB2, 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.

302 BDB, 1092r.


[47]


Regarding the main verb – was revealed – the syntactical-semantic thrust of the Pe’il stem should be noted. Specifically, the function of the Pe’il 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 Pe’il 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 Daniel’s 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 Daniel’s praise in 2:19b is teased out more fully in 2:20-23.

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

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 name of Yahweh be praised forever and ever [2:20b]For wisdom and power, which are His [2:20c]

304 On the Pe’il 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 [Pa’el, perfect, 3rd, ms].

[48]


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]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]

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 Yahweh’s 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 wisdom offered 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 wisdom of God is the power of God. Let the story unfold.

[49]


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 zqf qtn, 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 one’s 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 [mebrk]. The Pa’el 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/ mebrk with to bless or to praise.312 The Septuagint tradition uses the Greek verb euloge for mebrk. The Greek verb suggests to speak well of, to deliver a panegyric313 upon, or simply to honor.314 C.A. Keller notes that when euloge is used for brk when addressing God, 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.

308 The verbal construction is [Pa’el, participle, ms, sg] [Pe’al, imperfect, 3rd, ms, jussive sense]; the direct object is [noun, ms, sg, determined] [relative] [noun, ms, sg, construct with a 3rd, 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 KB2, 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.

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].

[50]


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, let’s 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 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 statementTo 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 Yahweh’s 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 Yahweh’s 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 Yahweh’s wisdom takes the form of resolution arrived at through deliberation. The impression one gets here is that Yahweh’s wisdom is worked out, in the real world, by means of a carefully thought out plan.

316 The subjects of the utterance are [conjunction, definite article, noun, sg, fm] and [definite article, noun, sg, fm]; the concluding relative clause is [personal pronoun, 3rd, fm, sg] [preposition, 3rd, ms, sg, pronominal suffix] [relative marker].

317 For this use of the relative marker , see Rosenthal § 86; Bauer-Leander § 70 g. 318 See KB2, 1851; Bauer-Leander § 108 s.

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.

[51]


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

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

In terms of Daniel 2:2-23 Yahweh’s 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 Yahweh’s thought and planning [2:21c-23].

The upshot of this praise to Yahweh’s 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

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 zqf qtn, 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

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.

325 The verb is [Haph’el, 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.

[52]


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 Haph’el stem of the verb, which signals causation, obviously on Yahweh’s 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 [en] 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

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 God’s 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: Yahweh’s 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.

327 For this use of the participle, see Rosenthal § 177; Bauer-Leander § 81 b. 328 For the causative nuance of the Haph’el, see Rosenthal § 99. 329 For this thought with elaboration, see Goldingay, 55-56.

330 Bauer-Leander § 88 h.

331 BDB, 1116; Holladay, 423; KB2, 2000.

332 KB2, 1597.

333 KB2, 1598. 334 Abraham Heschel, The Prophets, Two Volumes in One (Peabody: Prince Press, 2003), 174.

[53]


To begin with, epochs [zemn] 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 [zemn] 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] zemn can refer to the “specified times—i.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 zemn 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 zemn falls under the aegis of Yahweh.

The opening term for time, ddn, 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 ddn implies a fixed, appointed, or definite duration of time, occasionally involving specific conditions occurring within the durative time frame.341 Holladay also affirms the durative nuance and glosses ddn 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 ddn/times – a fixed and definite duration of time and zemn/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

335 For the first nuance, see KB2, 1866r; for the second, see Holladay, 404r and BDB, 1091r. 336 Anthony Tomasino, “zemn,” in NIDOTTE.

337 Ibid.

338 Ibid. 339 Ibid. 340 BDB, 1105; KB2, 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.

341 BDB, 1105r.

342 Holladay, 415r. 343 LSJ, 860.

344 Ibid., 2008.

345 Russell, 45.

[54]


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 men’s destinies. But, this is not so. Times and seasons are in God’s 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 Yahweh’s 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 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 Haph’el stem in which these two participles are written. As we have already observed, the Haph’el 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.

346 The first participial clause is /kings [noun, ms, pl] /deposing [Haph’el, participle, ms, sg]; and the second is /kings /and appointing [Haph’el, participle, ms, sg].

347 Andersen, 181.

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 Haph’el, see Rosenthal § 99; Bauer-Leander § 76 i.

351 Russell, 45.

[55]


The Aramaic term translated depose [dh] is fairly straightforward. It means to take away or simply to remove.352 The Septuagint traditions use the verb methsthmi, 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, “Man’s 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 [qm] is also clear-cut. The verb in the Haph’el 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 kathsthmi, 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 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,

352 KB2, 1944r; BDB, 1105r.

353 LSJ, 1090-91. 354 Longman, 79.

355 Muilenburg, 93.

356 See KB2, 1968-69; Holladay, 419; BDB, 1111r.

357 LSJ, 855.

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.

[56]


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 Yahweh’s 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 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 Yahweh’s 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 le, 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 le 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.

361 Goldingay, 55.

362 The participle is [Pe’al, participle, ms, sg]; the prepositional phrase is [preposition, noun, ms, pl].

363 The direct object here is [conjunction, definite article, noun, ms, sg]; the prepositional

phrase is /discernment [noun, fm, sg] [preposition, Pe’al, participle, ms, pl]. 364 Rosenthal § 79; KB2, 1905.

365 KB2, 1905; BDB, 1098r; Holladay, 410.

[57]


Yahweh provides glosses an Aramaic term [yehab] that is normally translated to give by most of the English versions. Kohler-Baumgartner translate give,366 as do the other major lexicons. At the same time, when Daniel praises and thanks God for this provision [yehab] 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 God’s wisdom;368 that is, Yahweh’s wisdom is unique to Him, including deep and hidden things [2:22a] and what is in obscurity [2:22b]. Baldwin observes that “God’s 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 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 [chkkm] is akin to wisdom [chokm] noted above. In this case, the wise/ chkkm are those who are who are wise learners in the school of Divine wisdom.374 The Hebrew cognate [chkm] also refers to the pious and wise person who knows and observes Torah.375 Holladay refers to the chkm as the God-fearing wise man who knows and keeps the law.376

The Hebrew cognate [chkm/wise] of the Aramaic term [chkkm/wise] stresses this quality of character that is God-fearing and attentive to Yahweh. The chkm/wise is one who takes note of and

366 KB2, 1889; BDB, 1095r; Holladay, 407.

367 See “Wisdom, knowledge, skill” in NIDOTTE. 368 KB1, 315.

369 Baldwin, 90.

370 BDB, 1095.

371 KB2, 1920.

372 LSJ, 1712.

373 Ibid., 1956.

374 BDB, 315.

375 KB1, 314.

376 Holladay, 104.

[58]


ponders the loyal love of Yahweh [Psalm 107:43]; the chkm/wise is one who listens and increases in learning [Proverbs 1:5]; the chkm/wise is the kind of man who is instructed and becomes wiser yet [Proverbs 9:9]; the chkm/wise is the kind of God-fearer who stores up knowledge [Proverbs 10:14]; and, the chkm/wise is one who seeks knowledge [Proverbs 18:15]. The upshot is this: All of these Hebrew cognates of the Aramaic term [chkm/wise] imply that the chkkm/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 chkkm/wise are those who have proven themselves to be God-fearers whose character seeks and absorbs Divine wisdom.

Discernment [bnh] is written as a participial clause – those who know [yd / participle] discernment [bnh]. 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]. Kohler-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.

The noun glossed discernment [bnh] is used only here in the Aramaic section of the Hebrew Bible. The Aramaic term [bnh] is glossed understanding,380 discernment,381 or insight.382 The Hebrew cognate [bnh] 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 bnh/discernment shows itself in “the ability to comprehend meanings and perceive relations and causes.”384 As far as the book of Daniel is concerned, bnh/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 bnh/discernment is the product of the exercise of the faculty of intellectual discernment.

Now, let’s 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 Yahweh’s hand in human history provided to [2] God-fearing persons who seek out and absorb Divine wisdom. The wisdom provided consists in God’s own wisdom, Yahweh’s unique access to deep and hidden things and His exclusive right of entry

377 KB2, 1888.

378 BDB, 1095.


380 BDB, 1084r.

381 KB2, 1833r.

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

383 Fox, Proverbs, 30. 384 Ibid.

385 Ibid.

[59]


into what is in obscurity. The persons who are provided this high level of all-embracing insight into Yahweh’s 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 Yahweh’s 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 Yahweh’s 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 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 Yahweh’s 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 chkkm/wise of Babylon are the mediums, diviner-priests and the astrologers [see also Daniel 5:7]. This

386 Alter, 19.

387 Ibid.

388 Russell, 46.

389 Goldingay, 56.

[60]


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.

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 uncovers392 or discloses393 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, Yahweh’s 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, God’s administration of human history – changing times and epochs, deposing leaders and appointing them – is characterized, from the human point of view as deep [mq] and hidden [mesttrt]. Indeed, it is!

390 Ibid.

391 The verbal participle is [Pe’al, participle, ms, sg]; the two direct objects are: /hidden things [definite article, Pa’el, passive participle, ms, pl] and /deep things [adjective, fm, pl].

392 BDB, 1086r.

393 Holladay, 401r.

394 LSJ, 107.

395 Ibid., 201.

[61]


The adjective – deep [things] – glosses a term that means ideas or circumstances that are humanly unfathomable [mq];396 Holladay goes with impenetrable things.397 The Hebrew cognates shed light on the sense of mq/deep things. An adjectival cognate [mq] is used by Zophar in Job to affirm that God’s 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 mq/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 [mesttrt].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 mesttrt. One tradition uses anakruphos, a terms that means hidden or concealed, or obscure and hard to understand.399 A different translator opts for 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 observer’s point of view. Again, if these mesttrt/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 Kim’s 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 believer’s response to all of this is also clearly revealed in Daniel 10-12, and Yahweh’s 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].

396 KB2, 1951r.

397 Holladay, 417r.

398 See BDB, 1104r; Holladay, 415.

399 LSJ, 204. 400 Ibid., 1615.

[62]


Daniel 2:22b He [Yahweh] knows what is in obscurity is a sentence that is punctuated with a zqf qtn, indicating a slight pause in the reading of the line.

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 Yahweh’s 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 [yeda] what is obscure to the human observer. The lexicons gloss yeda with know or understand.403 The Hebrew cognate [yd] suggests the kind of knowledge that is closely familiar with some circumstance or entity. The Hebrew term [yd] may be glossed to perceive, to take note of, to know by experience, to discriminate or to recognize.404 Even more to the point, Kohler-Baumgartner note that yd 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 [chak] 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, chak/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 Yahweh’s. A fair amount of what confronts Daniel in the book of Daniel is, from his human perspective, mystifying, bewildering, and murky. Daniel’s recourse to Yahweh in prayer and petition over this matter [2:17-19] attests to his own blindness and ignorance concerning Nebuchadnezzar’s 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.

401 The verb in the line is /He knows [Pe’al, participle, ms, sg]; the prepositional phrase is /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 KB2, 1888; BDB, 1095; Holladay, 407. 404 BDB, 393-94.

405 KB1, 391. 406 KB2, 1881r; BDB, 1094r; Holladay, 406r. 407 KB1, 362.

408 For this laundry list, see BDB, 365.

[63]


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

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

Lexical: the term glossed light [nehr] 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 nehr/light with brilliance,414 or simply light.415 There is feminine noun from the same family [nhr] that means illumination or insight.416 There are some interesting Ancient Near Eastern cognates for nehr/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 nehr/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 Nebuchadnezzar’s 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.

409 The subject is /light [conjunction, definite article, noun, ms, sg]; the participle is /dwells [Pe’al, 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. 413 See “Light, radiance, brightness,” in NIDOTTE. 414 Rosenthal, 91.

415 KB2, 1927r; BDB, 1102.

416 KB2, 1927.

417 Ibid.

[64]


Dwells [sher] translates a term that implies to settle down418 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 sher 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 Yahweh’s wisdom:

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

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

418 KB2, 2002r.

419 Bauer-Leander § 82 b. 420 Rosenthal, 99.

421 BDB, 1117r. 422 Montgomery, 161. 423 Russell, 46; Professor Russell’s 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.

[65]


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 legarmh, comes after To You, dividing 2:23a at this point. The second punctuation mark, a reb a , comes after the God of my fathers, and signals a slight pause in the reading of the line. The final mark, a zqf qtn, 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 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 Yahweh’s 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. Daniel’s 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 Daniel’s 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 [bert] 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].

424 The genitive is /my fathers [noun, ms, pl, construct with a 1st, cs, suffix] /the God of [noun, ms, sg, construct]; the predicate nominatives are /and praise [conjunction, Pa’el, participle, ms, sg] /thanks [Haph’el, participle, ms, sg].

425 See also Deuteronomy 1:11, 21; 6:3; 12:1; 27:3. 426 Slotki, 13.

[66]


Praise and thanks are worship language. The participle translated praise [mehd] has Ancient Near Eastern cognates that imply that to praise is to confess or respect.427 The Hebrew cognate [yd] 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 [yd] “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

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 [meabach] 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 ain, 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.

427 KB2, 1888.

428 See Leslie Allen, “yd,” 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, “yd,” in TLOT 2, 506.

430 LSJ, 597.

431 BDB, 1114; Holladay, 422.

432 KB2, 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 [Pe’al, perfect, 2nd, ms].

436 Bauer-Leander § 70.4 r.

437 Ibid., §70.4 g.

[67]


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 Daniel’s 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 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 king’s 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 [yehab] 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 ddmi, 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 zqf qtn, 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 [kean]. 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 Haph’el stem – You have made known – is causative; Yahweh is acknowledged as being directly responsible for the communication.445

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


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 [Haph’el, perfect, 2nd, ms, with a 1st, cs, suffix]; the relative clause is [preposition with a 2nd, ms, suffix] [Pe’al, perfect, 1, c, pl] [relative marker.

444 For this use of the temporal adverb, see KB2, 1901; Rosenthal § 89; Bauer-Leander § 68 u.

445 See Miles Van Pelt, Basics of Biblical Aramaic (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 143.

[68]


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 Yahweh’s communication with Daniel.446

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

The verb glossed asked [beh] has an interesting Akkadian cognate [bum] that refers to one who searches or examines.447 The Hebrew cognate [bah] is used rarely, but signifies a seeker who searches out some matter of concern.448 The Aramaic term used here [beh] 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 [beh] is used in parallel with chnan, 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.

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.

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 KB2, 1836.

448 KB1, 141. 449 KB2, 1836r. 450 BDB, 1085r.

451 Rosenthal, 80.

452 Holladay, 406.

[69]


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

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 zqf qtn, 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 Daniel’s 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

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 [Haph’el, perfect, 2nd, ms, with a 1, cpl, suffix].

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 [Pe’al, perfect, 3rd, ms]. 457 For the causative sense of this conjunction, see Bauer-Leander § 70 h; Rosenthal § 86.

458 The main verb is /appointed [Pa’el, perfect, 3rd, ms]; the infinitive clause is /Babylon [proper noun] /wise men of [preposition, noun, ms, pl, construct] /execute [preposition, Haph’el, infinitive construct].

[70]


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 [menh]. Indeed, the use of this verb in the Aramaic section of Daniel is very telling.

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

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, menh 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 menh, the term is used in the famous “handwriting on the wall” episode [5:26]. Here, Mene [menh] means that Yahweh has numbered the days of Belshazzar. The upshot is that this use of menh [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 legarmeh; the second is after spoke to him and is a reb a; and the final punctuation mark is a zqf qtn 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 Daniel’s 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 Daniel’s life in his hands.465

459 KB2, 1920r; BDB, 1101r; Holladay, 412r. 460 A.R. Pete Diamond, “menh,” 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 [Pe’al, perfect, 3rd, ms].

463 The directive form is [Haph’el, imperfect, 2nd, ms, jussive sense] [negative].

464 Bauer-Leander § 78 r-s.

465 See IBHS 34.3b on this point.

[71]


Daniel 2:24e “bring me before the king” is an utterance that is punctuated with a zqf qtn, 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

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 Daniel’s part. He intends that the focus of the utterance be front and center.470

The syntactical-semantic thrust of the Pa’el 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

466 The directive in 2:24e is /bring me [Haph’el, imperative, ms, with a 1st, cs, suffix].

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 [Pa’el, imperfect, 1st, 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.

[72]


The structure of Daniel 2:25-45 may be set out thus:

Preliminaries:Arioch’s presentation of Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar, 2:25Nebuchadnezzar’s addresses to Daniel, 2:26

Report of Daniel’s speech to Nebuchadnezzar:Daniel’s acknowledgment of the source of his information, 2:27-28Daniel’s revelation of the content of the dream, 2:29-35Daniel’s revelation of the meaning of the dream, 2:36-45

Preliminaries:

Arioch’s 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) [Arioch’s 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, be.476 The use of the preposition may be instrumental – with haste – and function essentially as an adverb – quickly.

473 Sweeney, 536.

474 The temporal adverb is ; the verbal element has a preposition prefixed to an infinitive construct: /quickly [preposition, Hithpa’el, infinitive construct] /brought [Haph’el, perfect, 3rd, ms].

475 See Bauer-Leander § 68 a, who glosses sodann; Rosenthal § 89.

476 Bauer-Leander § 85 h.

[73]


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

Daniel 2:25b and thus spoke to him as follows is a sentence that is punctuated with a reb 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 zqf qtn, 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 - mn/from – does signal the national origin of the man whom Arioch presents to the king.481

Lexical: the reader will note that Arioch’s 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.

477 Holladay, 399r; KB2, 1832r; also Bauer-Leander § 85 h [in haste].

478 BDB, 1084r; although BDB does adopt the traditional gloss – in haste.

479 LSJ, 1630-31.

480 The main verb is /I have found [Haph’el, perfect, 1st, 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.


[74]


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!

Daniel 2:25d “who can make known the interpretation to the king” is the final utterance in Daniel 2:25.

Nebuchadnezzar’s 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 zqf qtn, 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 author’s insertion of Daniel’s 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 Nebuchadnezzar’s 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.

483 The two verbs are /answered [Pe’al, participle, ms, sg] and [simple waw, Pe’al, participle, ms, sg]; the relative clause is: /Belteshazzar [proper name] /name [noun, ms, sg, construct with a 3rd, ms, suffix] [relative marker].

484 For this use of the participles, see Rosenthal § 14.

[75]


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

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 king’s 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 Daniel’s 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 Daniel’s impending revelation. First, Daniel affirms what is unable to reveal such matters [2:27c]. The failure of the best and the brightest of the king’s 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 history’s 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

485 The opening verbal collocation is /able [Pe’al, participle, ms, sg] /are you [interrogative he, predicator of existence, with a 2nd, ms, suffix]; the infinitive complement is /to make known to me [preposition, Haph’el, infinitive construct, with a 1st, cs, suffix]; the relative is /ts interpretation [simple waw, noun, ms, sg, construct with a 3rd, ms, suffix] /I saw [Pe’al, perfect, 1st, cs].


[76]


The genre of Daniel 2:27-28 is straightforward: It is a report of Daniel’s 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.

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 zqf qtn, 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 Daniel’s 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 [rz] 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

487 Collins, Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, 47.

488 The opening statement is /Daniel [proper name] /answered [Pe’al, participle, ms, sg]; the prepositional phrase is /the king [definite article, noun, ms, sg] /in [preposition]; the closing participle is /and said [copulative waw, Pe’al, participle, ms, sg].


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 [Pe’al, participle, ms, sg] /the king [definite article, noun, ms, sg]/concerning about which [relative marker].

492 Van der Merwe § 47.2(i).


494 LSJ, 1156. 495 The verbal collocation is /to make it known [preposition, Haph’el, infinitive construct]

[Pe’al, participle, ms, pl].

[77]


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.

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 punctuated with a zqf qtn, indicating a slight pause in the reading of the line.

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 [beram] – 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 Nebuchadnezzar’s 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 [glah] – describes what Yahweh does. The lexicons tell us that glah means to reveal; to glah 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 Yahweh’s gift of revelation [glah] in 2:28a hearkens back to Daniel’s hymn of praise in 2:20-23. In Daniel 2:22, Daniel praises Yahweh because Yahweh reveals/ glah deep and hidden things. The upshot is that in Daniel 2:28 Daniel is helping Nebuchadnezzar understand what Daniel comprehends about Yahweh.


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 [Pe’al, 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.

[78]


The sense of the lexeme secrets/mysteries has already been discussed.503 In connection with 2:18, we noted that rz/mystery/secret implies that which is beyond human comprehension. This is certainly the 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 [glah] secrets [rz] like the Most High. There is a larger point here.

The net effect is this: There are some rz/mysteries/secrets that can only be comprehended with Divine help, since they are beyond human comprehension. Indeed, this particular rz/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]. Daniel’s divinely disclosed insight into Yahweh’s 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 Yahweh’s 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 dream’s 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 Daniel’s 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 [mh] with a relative marker [d] 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 Haph’el stem is causative,510 yielding a translation such as

503 See the notes on Daniel 2:18, 28a.

504 The main verb is /He has made known [copulative waw, Haph’el, perfect, 3rd, ms]; the relative clause is /days [definite article, noun, ms, pl] /in the latter [preposition, noun, fm, sg, construct] /will happen [Pe’al, imperfect, 3rd, ms] /what [pronoun with a following relative].

505 For this use of the waw, see KB2, 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.

[79]


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 [yda/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 [yda] discernment. In Daniel 2:22b, the basis for this ability to dispense wisdom and understanding rests with Yahweh Himself, who knows [yda] 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 [yda] what was asked and [2] let Daniel know [yda] the solution to the king’s 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 [hvh] 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 [achart]. The noun may be translated afterward or simply later.516 Rosenthal notes that the noun is an abstract term and translates achart with end,517 as does Kohler-Baumgartner.518

The noun – achart – is found among a semantic field of terms for delay.519 Within this field, achart 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 priest’s 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 [achart] days of Job during which Yahweh greatly blessed him. Accordingly, there is some evidence to support translating achart in the sense of in the future or in days to come. This sense is also supported by the appearance of char , a preposition from the same root word, in Daniel 2:29.

511 BDB, 1095r.

512 Holladay, 407; see also KB2, 1889r.

513 KB2, 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 KB2, 1810r. 519 See “Delay,” in NIDOTTE. 520 Bill T. Arnold, “achart,” in NIDOTTE.

[80]


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 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 Nebuchadnezzar’s 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 Nebuchadnezzar’s dream includes a stone made without human hands [2:34a] that effectively brings an end to the statue in Nebuchadnezzar’s 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 Nebuchadnezzar’s 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 Nebuchadnezzar’s 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 utterance in Daniel 2:28.

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

Paragraph sense

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.

[81]


(i) [Daniel’s opening remark] “You, O king, your thoughts upon your bed turned to what will happenlater;

(ii) [Continuation of discourse] so, the One who reveals mysteries makes known to you what willhappen.

(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 king’s preoccupation with the future of his regime. Then, Daniel reminds Nebuchadnezzar of the way in which Daniel came to possess this insight into the king’s 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.

To begin with, the king sees in his dream a single great and radiant statue [2:31]. Due to the appearance of the statue, Nebuchadnezzar’s response was terror.

[82]


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 Daniel’s 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 reading of the line.

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 verb – turned to – and concludes with a relative clause as the direct object of the main verb – what will happen later.525

524 Collins, Forms of Old Testament Literature, 108. 525 The subject is [noun, ms, sg, construct with a 2ns, ms, suffix]; the main verb is

[Pe’al, perfect, 3rd, ms, pl].

[83]


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 king’s 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 [3rd, 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 [ran] running through his mind. Kohler-Baumgartner offers some enlightening Ancient Near Eastern cognates for thoughts [ran]. For example, there is a Syriac cognate [reyn] 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 [ran] – is a development from the Syriac [pleasure] to the Arabic [purpose], and then to thought [ran].528 In the Septuagint tradition of Theodotion, we find dialogismos used for thoughts [ran], a Greek noun that may be translated calculation or consideration.529 The king’s thoughts would seem to encompass his intentions or designs for the future [what will happen later].

The writer tells us that the king’s thoughts [ran] turned to [selq] what will happen in the future. The verb – selq – 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 selq in the sense of to arise is used figuratively of thoughts. Theodotion uses anabain, which may be translated to spring up.531 Slotki’s take on this line may be noted: “Before falling asleep, the king’s 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 [achar den]. The prepositional phrase – later [achar den] – signifies what happens at some point in the future.533

Daniel 2:29b so, the One who reveals mysteries makes known to you what will happen is the final utterance in Daniel 2:29.

526 Bauer-Leander § 72 a. 527 KB2, 1983.


529 LSJ, 402. 530 KB2, 1938.

531 LSJ, 98.

532 Slotki, 15. 533 See Bauer-Leander § 68 v.

[84]


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 Yahweh’s 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 Haph’el stem on the main verb – makes known – should be taken into account by the reader. The Haph’el stem is causative,537 thus pointing to Yahweh’s roll through Daniel in bringing comprehension to Nebuchadnezzar concerning his dream. As in Daniel 2:28 where the verb is used in the same Haph’el 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 Haph’el of yd Daniel is once more back-referencing the great hymn to Yahweh’s 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 [Haph’el of yd] 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 [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 zqf qtn, 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 wisdom – that is within me – and concludes with another prepositional phrase – superior to any living man.540

534 The opening participial clause with direct object is [definite article, noun ms, pl] [simple waw, Pe’al, participle, ms, sg]; the main verb is [Haph’el, perfect, 3rd, ms with a 2nd, ms, suffix].

535 For this use of the simple waw, see KB2, 1862.


537 Van Pelt, 77; Bauer-Leander § 76 i-n.

538 BDB, 1095r.

539 Holladay, 407; see also KB2, 1889r.

540 The negated prepositional phrase is /on the basis of wisdom [preposition, noun, fm, sg] /not [negative particle]; the defining relative clause is /within me [preposition with a 1st, sg, suffix] /is [particle of existence] [relative marker]; and the closing prepositional phrase is /living man

[85]


Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:30a is to present a disclaimer on Daniel’s 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 Yahweh’s wisdom and power in Daniel 2:20-23.

The negated prepositional phrase – not on the basis of wisdom – uses the preposition [be] 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 Daniel’s 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 [mn] is comparative in the sense of superior to.545 Thus, Daniel’s 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.

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

[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; KB2, 1830r.

544 On this point, see BDB, 1093r.

545 KB2, 1919r; see also Bauer-Leander § 94 h. 546 The subject is /this [adjective, ms, sg] /mystery [definite article, noun, ms, sg]; the verb is

/has been revealed [Pe’al, perfect, 3rd, ms].

[86]


Syntax: the syntactical point of the passive perfect – has been revealed – is probably to underline a present perfect nuance, 547or 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 zqf qtn, 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 Haph’el stem on the main verb – is made known – once more points to causation, this time on Daniel’s 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 [yda here and in 11:32 (those who know their God); and kal in 11:33, 35].

Lexical: the reader is referred to the notes on Daniel 2:4 for the gory details concerning interpretation [per]. At this point, we offer a summary of the interpretation/ per.

For openers, the ANE cognates point to per point to a diagnosis, a solution, or a meaning of something that is obscure.

Turning from linguistic cognates to the function of interpretation [per] among divines in the Ancient Near East, the reader is reminded of the tasks of these heavenly middlemen. The interpretation 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

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 [Haph’el, 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. 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.

[87]


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 per presumed some level of divine aid supporting the per of the professional interpreters. To put the same thing another way, the per 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, per 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 per, 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/ per 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 king’s thoughts.555

Lexical: the thoughts [rayn] that originate within and preoccupy the king’s mind is an Aramaic term we have considered previously in Daniel 2:29. At that point, the rayn 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

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]

553 The direct object is a genitive construction: /your mind [noun, ms, sg, construct with a 2nd, ms, suffix] [simple waw, noun, ms, spl, construct]; the main verb is /you would know [Pe’al, imperfect, 2nd, 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.

[88]


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 zqf qtn, 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 [tselm] 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.

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 [zw] seems to be a bit tricky to nail down. Kohler-Baumgartner translate zw with radiance or brightness.562

556 The verbs in the sentence are: /you were [Pe’al, perfect, 2nd, ms] /looking [Pe’al, participle, ms] and /and behold [particle].

557 Rosenthal § 177; Bauer-Leander § 81 q; Montgomery, 165. 558 The noun that opens the line is /statue [noun, ms, sg]; the cardinal number is /single; and

the adjective is [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 3rd, ms, suffix]; the verb is /standing [Pe’al, participle, ms, sg].

561 See BDB, 1112.

562 KB2, 1864.

[89]


At the same time, Rosenthal links zw with an Akkadian cognate [zmu] that usually points to the facial features, face, or appearance.563 Van Pelt goes with radiance, brightness or countenance.564 Montgomery concludes that zw 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 writer’s 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 Pe’al participle of dechal 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].

Daniel 2:32a “That statue – its head – pure gold” is a sentence that is punctuated with a zqf qtn, indicating a slight pause in the reading of the line.

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

563 Rosenthal § 188. 564 Van Pelt, 226.


566 The subject of the nominal clause is /its appearance [noun, ms, sg, construct with a 3rd, ms, suffix]; the predicate of the noun clause is /frightening [Pe’al, passive participle].

567 For the intensifying use of the waw, see KB2, 1862. 568 Bauer-Leander § 82 c. 569 KB2, 1850.

570 Bauer-Leander 82 c; BDB, 1087r. 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 3rd, ms, suffix].

[90]


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 [dehab]. The noun glossed gold [dehab] simply refers to the precious metal – gold.573 Gold [dehab] 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 anyone’s 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 [kesap]. Basically, silver [kesap], 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 [kesap] 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

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.

572 Van Pelt, 171; Rosenthal § 34.

573 KB2, 1848; BDB, 1087.

574 On this point, see Robin Wakely, “,” in NIDOTTE [H2298]. 575 BDB, 1094; Holladay, 406; also Bauer-Leander § 51 h and KB2, 1882.

576 Wakely, NIDOTTE [H2298].

577 KB2, 1900-01.


[91]


Lexical: the metal in focus in the statue now is bronze [nechsh]. 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 statue’s most vulnerable point.

The preposition – partly of [mn] – is used as a partitive. The sense is some of it … other of it.582 Kohler-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 [hasaf] 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 option is to read Daniel 2:33b – the feet were partly iron and partly clay – and leave it at that. In the final analysis, Montgomery’s 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

579 KB2, 1929. 580 BDB, 639.

581 Ibid., 137. 582 Holladay, 412; also BDB, 1100.

583 KB2, 1919; see also Rosenthal § 80. 584 Holladay, 406; so also KB2, 1879, opts for moulded clay.

[92]


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 zqf qtn, 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 Daniel’s account of the content of the dream, with ominous signs beginning to develop.

You continued looking uses the perfect of the verb to be [hw] with the participle of the verb to look [chz] 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 Daniel’s description of the content of the dream.588

The Hithpa’el 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 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

585 Montgomery, 167; see also Baldwin, 92.

586 The initial sentence is /you continued [Pe’al, perfect, 2nd, ms] /looking [Pe’al, participle, ms, sg]; the temporal clause opens with the temporal indicator: , followed by the verb-subject collocation: /stone [noun, fm, sg] /was cut [Hithpa’el, perfect, 3rd, 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 KB2, 1806r.

592 In Daniel 2, this term – stone [eben] – appears in 2:34-35, 45.

[93]


The chief action in the temporal clause is the creation of the rock; we are told that it was cut [gezar]. 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 king’s 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 Daniel’s 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 [mech] – is best glossed to strike.597 A Hebrew cognate [mch] of this Aramaic verb may be translated to crush; while another Hebrew cognate [mchats] 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].

Grammar: Daniel 2:34c consists of two words, the verb – and so it shattered – and the direct object – them.599

593 KB2, 1844r. 594 Holladay, 401r. 595 For this translation of the phrase, see KB2, 1851r; BDB, 1094; Holladay, 402r; and Bauer-

Leander § 108 u. 596 The main verb is: /then it struck [Pe’al, perfect, 3rd, fm, sg]. 597 KB2, 1914r; BDB, 1099r.

598 See BDB, 562-63.

[94]


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 [wehaddqet] – and so, it shattered.600

Lexical: we have a different term for shattering in Daniel 2:34c [deqaq]. 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 reb 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.

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.

599 The verb is /and so, it shattered [Haph’el, perfect, 3rd, fm, sg]; the direct object is /them [independent personal pronoun, 3rd, ms, pl].

600 See Bauer-Leander § 79 c. 601 KB2, 1855r; BDB, 1089r. 602 Holladay, 403r. 603 The opening adverb is /then [preposition prefixed to an adverb; the main verb is /were

shattered [Pe’al, perfect, 3rd, ms, pl]; and the modal assertive adverb is /without distinction.


605 Bauer-Leander § 68 a. 606 Rosenthal § 93.

607 Bauer-Leander § 68 v.

[95]


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 punctuated with a zqf qtn, indicating a slight pause in the reading of the line.

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 zqf qtn, 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.

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]

608 The main verb is /and so, they became [Pe’al, perfect, 3rd, 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 KB2, 1862; see also Bauer-Leander § 79 c. 610 Alter, 72. 611 The negated subject is /no [negative particle] /trace [noun, ms, sg] [noun, ms, sg,

construct]; the main verb is /found [Hithpe’el, perfect, 3rd, ms].

612 KB2, 1829r.

613 Bauer-Leander § 51 p.

[96]


Daniel 2:35e “however, the stone that struck the statue” is a sentence that is punctuated with a reb 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 [tsr], 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 Nebuchadnezzar’s 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

Lexical: the obvious keys here are the verb – filled – and the direct object – all the earth. The verb translated filled [mel] isn’t 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 whole earth [7:23].

614 The main verb is /became [Pe’al, perfect, 3rd, fm, sg]; the direct object is /great [adjective] /mountain [noun, ms, sg].

615 KB2, 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 [tsr, Deuteronomy 32:18; Isaiah 26:4, among others].

617 The main verb is /and filled [Pe’al, perfect, 3rd, fm, sg]; the direct object is /the earth

[definite article, noun, fm, sg]/all [noun, ms, sg, construct]. 618 BDB, 1100; KB2, 1915.

[97]


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 God’s 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.

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 theKing.

(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;

619 Pter-Contesse and Ellington, 58.

[98]


(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.

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.

[99]


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 Daniel’s 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 king’s 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.

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 zqf qtn, 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.

620 For an elaboration of these objectives among those who had dreams interpreted for them, see Oppenheim, 218-25.

[100]


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 – we declare – 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 Daniel’s humility; the present message was not Daniel’s 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 king’s royalty.624

The function of the genitive [King of kings] is to rhetorically underline the superlative associated with the king’s 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 one’s culture.

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

621 The direct object is /its interpretation [noun, ms, sg, construct with a 3rd, ms, suffix]; the main verb is /we declare [Pe’al, imperfect, 1st, common, pl].

622 Slotki, 17. 623 Montgomery, 171.

624 See KB2, 1917r.

625 Bauer-Leander § 89 i. 626 Rosenthal § 189. 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], /the

[101]


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 king’s 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 Nebuchadnezzar’s 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 Yahweh’s wisdom and power [2:20-22], including Yahweh’s 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 Daniel’s way of telling the reader that his interpretation is teasing out the implications of the great hymn of praise to Yahweh’s 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 Yahweh’s 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 Yahweh’s giving [yehab] this royal rule to Nebuchadnezzar. As noted above, whatever trappings of royalty Nebuchadnezzar enjoys, they are a byproduct of Yahweh’s doing.

The Aramaic verb – has given [yehab] – 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

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 [Pe’al, perfect, 3rd, 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. 632 KB2, 1889r; BDB, 1095r.

633 LSJ, 422.

634 Baldwin, 92-93.

[102]


There are subsequent uses of this verb [yehab] that are revealing. Some of them relate to Nebuchadnezzar, others to One like a Son of Man, and yet another pericope connects yehab to the Holy people of God. As we shall note, the objects that are given [yehab] are similar; only the class of recipients and the duration of the gifts differ.

As far as Nebuchadnezzar is concerned, he is given [yehab] the following honors:

Daniel 2 Daniel 5

Sovereignty/kingdom [malk (2:37)] Sovereignty/kingdom [malk (5:18)]Power [chsan (2:37)] Greatness [reb (5:18)]

Strength [teqp (2:37)] Glory/honor [yeqr (5:18)]Glory/honor [yeqr (2:37)] Majesty [hdar (5:18)]

Turning to One like a Son of Man, he is given [yehab] the following honors:

Dominion [sholn (7:14)]Glory/honor [yeqr (7:14)]

Sovereignty/kingdom [malk (7:14)]

Then, considering the honors that are given [yehab] to the People of the Holy One:

Sovereignty/kingdom [malk (7:27)]Dominion [sholn (7:27)]

Greatness [reb (7:27)]

Putting all of this together, there would appear to be patterns in history. First, the panoply of honors that are given [yehab] to military-political power-players, like Nebuchadnezzar, are destined to be forfeited by them and given [yehab] 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 [yehab] to One like a Son of Man remain with Him everlastingly [7:14]. Similarly, the array of honors that are given [yehab] 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 Daniel’s affirmation in 2:20-21 concerning Yahweh’s 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 Yahweh’s precincts. For now, the world’s 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!

The principle honors that Yahweh bestows on Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2:37are: [1] Sovereignty/kingdom [malk ], [2] power [chsan], [3] strength [teqp], and [4] glory/honor [yeqr].

[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.

635 See KB2, 1917r; Rosenthal, 89; and BDB, 1100r.

[103]


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 [chsan]. The power [chsan] 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 [chsan] is also used by Nebuchadnezzar himself, referencing his mighty strength that built Babylon the Great [Daniel 4:30]. BDB glosses power [chsan] in the sense of royal power.641 There is a verbal form of the root [chsn], which BDB renders to take possession of.642 BDB also cites Syriac cognates of this verb that mean to overpower.643

The power [chsan] that Yahweh grants Nebuchadnezzar is the king’s royal power or, better yet, the power associated with human achievement.644 We gain an insight into how Nebuchadnezzar overrates his power [chsan] in Daniel 4:30. That is, as far as the king is concerned, Babylon the Great was built with his power [chsan], 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 [teqp].645 Beginning with the noun in Daniel 2:37b [teqp], there are Ancient Near Eastern cognates. The Imperial Aramaic and Nabataean cognates 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 [teqp] 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 [teqp] used in Daniel 4:30. Daniel 4:30 is part of Nebuchadnezzar’s soliloquy to his greatness [Daniel 4:29-30]. Walking on the roof of the royal palace in

636 See Philip J. Nel, “,” in NIDOTTE [H4887]. 637 Ibid. 638 Bauer-Leander § 51 f. 639 KB2, 1878. 640 Ibid.

641 BDB, 1093. 642 Ibid.

643 Ibid. 644 For this nuance, see Robin Wakely, “,” in NIDOTTE [H2891].

645 The strength [teqp] that is referred to is a bit tricky to pin down. The Aramaic form is dubious, but if it is read as written [teqp], then it appears only here in Daniel. There is another nominal form [teqp (Daniel 4:30)] and a verbal form [teqp (Daniel 4:8, 17, 19; 5:20; 6:8)]. There are Hebrew cognates. There is a verbal form [tqp(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 [taqqp (Ecclesiastes 6:10)].

646 KB2, 2009.

647 Ibid.

[104]


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 [teqp] of my royal power and for the honor of my majesty?”

By the strength [teqp] of my royal power [chsan] 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: Nebuchadnezzar’s royal power [chsan] is the creator of his strength [teqp]. The king’s strength [teqp] is the showcase of his royal power [chsan], the clout and muscle the world sees and has to deal with.

Of the verbal forms of this root [teqp], 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 Daniel’s insight into the heart and spirit of Nebuchadnezzar. Specifically, Daniel evaluates Nebuchadnezzar as a man whose spirit was hardened [teqp] into pride. Literally, the clause reads: His spirit was strengthened into [teqp] pride. Nebuchadnezzar was thoroughly confirmed [teqp] in presumptuous behavior; his was an overbearing spirit that was toughened and unyielding [teqp] in its pride. In a nutshell, the king was hard-boiled and casehardened [teqp] into pride.

Our review of the Aramaic terms for strength [teqp] in Daniel 2:37b has born some fruit. Nebuchadnezzar’s strength [teqp] arises from the force of his royal power [chsan]. Indeed, his strength [teqp] is the public face of his power. But, this also was a bestowal from Yahweh. If Nebuchadnezzar’s 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 [yeqr]. 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 [yeqr] is one of the honors shifted from its political-military realm to that of One like a Son of Man [7:14].

In the case of imperial honor, the reader is entitled to conclude that imperial honor [yeqr] 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 zqf qtn, indicating a short pause in the reading of the line.

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

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 KB2, 1893r.

651 Holladay, 408r; BDB, 1096r.

[105]


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 Nebuchadnezzar’s 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 Nebuchadnezzar’s 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 Nebuchadnezzar’s rule is expressed in terms of [4] He has given655 [5] into your power.

In terms of the Book of Daniel, the breadth of Nebuchadnezzar’s 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 Nebuchadnezzar’s 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 man’s charter of dominion over all living creatures.”656

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

652 The marker of the relative clause is /wherever; the main verb in the relative clause is /dwell [Pe’al, 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 [Pe’al, perfect, 3rd, 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. 657 The main verb is /so, He has caused you to rule [Haph’el, perfect, 3rd, ms, sg, with a 2nd,

ms, sg, suffix].

[106]


Syntax: the sentence seems to function as a kind of summary of Daniel 2:37-38b. In any event, the Haph’el 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 [shel] – rule – points to active causation on Yahweh’s part, leading to Nebuchadnezzar’s 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 one’s 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 Daniel’s 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.

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

658 Rosenthal § 99; Van Pelt, 143; Bauer-Leander § 76 i. 659 Daniel 2:38-39, 48; 3:27; 5:7, 16; 6:25. 660 KB2, 1995r.

661 Ibid.

662 Ibid., 1521.

663 Ibid.

664 Ibid.


[107]


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 [btr] 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 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 [ara] to you, Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom. The term is best translated below or underneath,672 in the sense of inferior to.673

666 The subject of the noun clause is /it [personal pronoun, 3rd, ms, sg]/you [personal pronoun, 2nd, 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; KB2, 1858r.

669 The temporal marker is /after you [conjunction, preposition (), prefixed to a particle with a 2nd, ms, sg, suffix]; the main verb is /will arise [Pe’al, imperfect, 3rd, fm, sg]; the subject of the verb with modifier is /another [adjective, fm, sg] /kingdom [noun, fm, sg]; and the appositional element is /to yours [preposition with a 2nd, ms, sg, suffix] /inferior [noun, fm, sg].

670 Rosenthal § 84; so also Bauer-Leander § 69 k; KB2, 1831r.

671 Montgomery, 175. 672 Rosenthal § 88 (4); Bauer-Leander § 68 o. 673 KB2, 1826r; BDB, 1083r; Holladay, 398r.

[108]


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, God’s vision undercuts our understanding, informing us that the opposite is true.”674

The reader of Daniel’s 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 the patterns 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 zqf qtn, 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

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.

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 [Pe’al, imperfect, 3rd, fm, sg]. 677 Bauer-Leander § 78 f; for lexical data on this verb, see in Daniel 2:38b.

[109]


The prepositional phrase – over all the earth – communicates the whole of something. Specifically, when the prepositional component – over all [bekl] – precedes a noun with a definite article – the earth – 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 Daniel’s 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 [taqqp] – underlines the unyielding character of this iron kingdom. Robin Wakely notes that this Aramaic adjective may describe what is hard, stern, or severe.680 Kohler-Baumgartner translate the adjective with strong or impressive.681 In this context, the adjective describes the kind of strength [taqqp] that is utterly overpowering [2:40b]. The strength [taqqp] of this kingdom is beyond successfully resisting.

For the sense of iron, see the notes on Daniel 2:33a.

Daniel 2:40b “because, as iron smashes or subdues everything” is a line that is punctuated with a zqf qtn, 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

678 KB2, 1898r.

679 The main verb is /will come into being [Pe’al, imperfect, 3rd, 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 KB2, 2008. 682 The subordinating conjunction is /because or forasmuch as; the two verbs are

participles: /and shatters [Pe’al, participle, ms, sg] and /smashes [Haph’el, participle, ms, sg].

[110]


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 Haph’el 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 [deqaq] – 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 [chal] – 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

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 doesn’t 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 [4QDan2:40], the phrase is found. Accordingly, we see no reason to delete it.

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 Van Pelt, 143; Rosenthal § 99. 686 KB2, 1855.

687 BDB, 1089.

688 Holladay, 403. 689 KB2, 1881.

690 Ibid.

691 LSJ, 368. 692 Montgomery, 175; also Hartman and Di Lella, 141; Goldingay, 35.

[111]


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, 3rd, feminine, singular] or subdue [Pe’al, imperfect, 3rd, 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 doesn’t 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 view695 – 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.

Lexical: of lexical interest is the new verb used to depict the force and violence of this fourth

kingdom – crushes [rea]. BDB glosses to shatter696 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 [deqaq], subdue [chal], and crush [rea]. The first depicts the kind of force that simply

693 The prepositional phrase is /so, like the iron [conjunction, preposition (), definite article, noun, ms, sg]; the relative clause is /crushes [Pa’el, 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 [Pe’al, imperfect, 3rd, fm, sg] and /it will smash [Aphel, imperfect, 3rd, 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.

696 BDB, 1113r.

697 Bauer-Leander § 40 g.

698 Rosenthal, 97.

[112]


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 God’s 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 reba, 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 Daniel’s 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-à-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 zqf qtn, 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

Syntax: the line is syntactically dominated by the partitive construction – partly of … partly of. The particle [mnnhn] 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 zqf qtn, indicating a brief pause in the reading of the line.

699 The main verb is /you saw [Pe’al, perfect, 2nd, ms]. 700 For the causal sense of the relative [], see Bauer-Leander § 70 g; KB2, 1851r, glosses our

passage with whereas or forasmuch as.

701 The partitive is /and partly of [particle] … /partly of [particle]. 702 KB2, 1919r; BDB, 1101; Holladay, 412r; Rosenthal § 80. 703 Baldwin, 93.

[113]


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 [hvh], 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.

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

704 The predicate nominative is /divided [Pe’al, passive participle, fm, sg] /kingdom [noun, fm, sg]; the main verb is /it will be [Pe’al, imperfect, 3rd, fm, sg].

705 See Andersen, Sentence, 46; see also Gibson § 146; Bauer-Leander § 93. 706 Rosenthal § 177.

707 KB2, 1956r.

708 Holladay, 417r. 709 LSJ, 431. 710 Pter-Contesse and Ellington, 243. 711 Goldingay, 35. 712 The opening prepositional phrase is /the firmness [definite article, noun, fm, sg]/some

of [conjunction, preposition]; the verbal element is /within it [prepositional phrase]/will be [Peal, imperfect, 3rd, ms, sg].

[114]


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 [mn] 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 potter’s 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 potter’s clay.718

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

713 For this use of the conjunctive waw in Aramaic, see Bauer-Leander § 70 r. 714 For this partial nuance in the preposition [mn], see Rosenthal § 80; KB2, 1919r. 715 KB2, 1933r; also Holladay, 414.

716 BDB, 1103.

717 LSJ, 1570.

718 The subordinating conjunction is /inasmuch as; the main verb is /you saw [Peal, perfect, 2nd, ms, sg]; and the participle is /mixed [Pael, participle, passive, ms, sg].

719 See the notes on Daniel 2:41a-b for details of the language.

[115]


Daniel 2:42b “so, some of the kingdom will be strong” is a sentence that is punctuated with a zqf qtn, indicating a slight pause in the reading of the line.

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 Kohler-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 [teqp]. 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 nation’s 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 teqp 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!

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 nation’s composite structure.

720 The opening prepositional phrase is /some/to some extent [preposition, noun, fm, sg, construct]; the main verb is /will be [Peal, imperfect, 3rd, fm, sg]; the predicate adjective is /strong [adjective, fm, sg].

721 See Rosenthal § 80; KB2, 1971r.

722 KB2, 1971r.

723 See the lexical notes on Daniel 2:40a, above. 724 The opening prepositional phrase is /and some of it [conjunction, preposition, with a 3rd, fm,

sg, suffix]; the participial predicate is /fragile [Pe’al, passive participle, fm, sg].

[116]


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 [tebar] – points to what is inherently breakable. The verb appears only here in the Aramaic portion of Daniel.

The verb [tebar] 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 BDB’s observation on the verb [tebar].

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 one’s grip on power may be in play. At the same time and looking further down the road, this superpower’s 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 zqf qtn, 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.

Daniel 2:43b “they will mix together with the seed of men” is punctuated with another zqf qtn, 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


726 KB2, 2004r.

727 BDB, 1117r. 728 LSJ, 1728-29. 729 The verbal component is a finite verb with a participle; the finite verb is /they will [Pe’al,

imperfect, 3rd, ms, pl] and the participle is /mix together [Hithpa’el, participle, ms, pl].

[117]


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. Kohler-Baumgartner glosses to mingle.732 Holladay goes with to mix or join.733 When used with the direct object – seed [zera] – 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 [zera] – 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

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 [debq]. Kohler-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


731 Bauer-Leander § 81 i. 732 KB2, 1953r.

733 Holladay, 417. 734 Montgomery, 189. 735 The verbal component is /cling to [Pe’al, participle, ms, pl] /will not [Pe’al,

imperfect, 3rd, ms, pl].

736 For the contrastive function of the conjunction, waw, see Bauer-Leander § 70 p. 737 KB2, 1848.

738 Ibid.

739 Holladay, 401.

[118]


There is Hebrew cognate [dbaq] that could figure into how we read Daniel 2:43c. That is, used metaphorically, the Hebrew verb [dbaq] 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 mankind’s 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

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.

740 BDB, 179. 741 Holladay, 66. 742 Bauer-Leander § 70 w; Rosenthal § 86.

743 Baldwin, 93.

[119]


(vii) [Causal/basis for (i-vi)] Because of the fact that you saw a stone that was cut out of the mountainyet 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 reb 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.

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.

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 3rd, ms, pl, suffix (literally, in those days)]; the genitive is /those [personal pronoun, 3rd, 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, KB2, 1830.

748 Van Pelt, 57; see also Bauer-Leander § 21 e. 749 See IBHS, 17.5b.

[120]


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, indicating a slight pause in the reading of the line.

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 Aph’el stem of the verb – will establish – underscores Yahweh’s active-causative role in establishing this kingdom.753 The fact that this upcoming kingdom is God’s 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 [qm] a kingdom [malk]. Both terms are important.

We have seen the verb previously. Establish [qm] 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 [qm] the only kingdom that will survive in perpetuity.

The sense of the verb [qm] 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

750 Longman, 83. 751 Hartman and Di Lella, 149.

752 The main verb is /will establish [Aph’el, imperfect, 3rd, 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. 755 KB2, 1968r.

756 BDB, 1111r.

[121]


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 [malkt] sheds light. Kohler-Baumgartner translate malkt with royal dominion.761 BDB offers two relevant nuances for malkt: [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 [malkt] is used of Yahweh’s kingdom.764 Some of these references have useful parallel terms; terms that can help the reader understand the sense of kingdom [malkt]. For example, in Psalm 45:6, Yahweh’s kingdom [malkt] is parallel to Yahweh’s throne [kiss]. The throne is a seat of honor,765suggesting superiority, and a place from which a king rules,766 suggesting ultimate authority. Thus, preeminence and power are part and parcel of Yahweh’s kingdom [malkt].

In Psalm 103:19, the poet tells us that Yahweh’s kingdom [malkt] rules [mshal] over everything. Obviously, Psalm 103:19 intends to links Yahweh’s kingdom [malkt] with Yahweh’s universal rule. The Hebrew term used for rule [mshal] specifies the one who is in authority.767 That Yahweh is ruler [mshal] is “the one fundamental statement in the theology of the Old Testament.”768 The net effect is that Yahweh’s kingdom [malkt] is the place where Yahweh exercises His unassailable rule [see also Psalm 145:13 in this regard].

757 LSJ, 841.

758 Ibid., 144.

759 BDB, 1100r. 760 KB2, 1918r. 761 KB1, 593.

762 BDB, 574-75.

763 Holladay, 199.

764 1 Chronicles 17:14 [My kingdom (malkt)]; Psalm 45:6 [Your kingdom (malkt)]; 103:19 [His kingdom (malkt)]; 145:11 [Your kingdom (malkt)], 12 [Your kingdom (malkt)], 13 [Your kingdom (malkt)].

765 KB1, 487.

766 BDB, 491. 767 KB1, 647r.

768 Ludwig Kohler, Old Testament Theology, translated by A.S. Todd, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1957), 30.

[122]


The sum of the matter is this: God will establish a kingdom means that Yahweh alone, without the aid of this world’s 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 zqf qtn, indicating a slight pause in the reading of the line.

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 [lelemn] combines to communicate never.770

The Hithpa’al 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

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 ochrn] requires definition, as well as the main verb [shebaq].

The setting in which royal authority is used here suggests that royal authority [malk] means the act of ruling or the exercise of sovereignty. The previous use of royal authority [malk] in Daniel 2:44b emphasized Yahweh’s office of ruling; here, in Daniel 2:44d, the sense of royal authority [malk] shifts to

769 The prepositional phrase is /never [preposition () prefixed to a noun, ms, pl]; the main verb is /be destroyed [Hithpa’al, imperfect, 3rd, fm, sg] [negative particle].

770 For this construction, see KB2, 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 /another [adjective, ms, sg] /to people [preposition (), noun, ms, sg]; and the main verb is /pass on to [Hithpe’el, imperfect, 3rd, fm, pl].

[123]


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 [mshal] was, at one time, the unique prerogative of Yahweh. When Gideon was asked by the people of God to rule [mshal] over them, Gideon’s response was quick and firm: Only Yahweh shall rule [mshal] 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]. Yahweh’s 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 Yahweh’s 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 Yahweh’s 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 [ochrn] 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 Kohler-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].

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 Daniel’s 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

774 Moshe Halbertal and Avishai Margalit, Idolatry, translated by Naomi Goldblum (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992), 218.

775 KB2, 1950; BDB, 766-67; Robert H. O’Connell, “,” in NIDOTTE [H6638].

776 KB2, 1950r; also Holladay, 416r. 777 S.R. Driver, The Book of Daniel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1901), 30; also

Russell, Daniel, 53.

[124]


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-à-vis kingdoms. Moreover, Daniel’s use of the noun, people [am], when he does have Israel in mind is clearly disambiguated. Finally, Daniel’s 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 Yahweh’s 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 [shebaq] – means that the royal authority will not be left to or devolve upon another people. Kohler-Baumgartner translate shebaq in the sense of to be left with or to pass on to.778 BDB simply translates shebaq 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 shebaq 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: Yahweh’s royal authority remains with Yahweh. On one level, “no other people will have the strength to dominate”786 Yahweh’s royal sovereignty. At a second level, Daniel 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 [God’s kingdom] will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms” is a line that is punctuated with a zqf qtn, indicating a slight pause in the reading of the line.

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] God’s kingdom will never be

778 KB2, 1991r. 779 BDB, 1114r.

780 Holladay, 421. 781 LSJ, 466. 782 LSJ, 1887.


784 Collins, Daniel, 153.

785 Goldingay, 32.

786 Pter-Contesse and Ellington, 65. 787 The main verbs are /and put an end to [Aph’el, imperfect, 3rd, fm, sg] /crush [Aph’el,

imperfect, 3rd, fm, sg].

[125]


destroyed (2:44c), [2] its royal authority remains the sole prerogative of Yahweh (2:44d), and [3] God’s 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 Aph’el 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 [deqaq] – 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, 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

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.


793 BDB, 1089r.

794 Holladay, 403r. 795 KB2, 1938r.

796 Ibid. 797 LSJ, 286.

[126]


The reader will observe that Yahweh’s 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, man’s 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 [qm]. For openers, the reader should appreciate the back reference to Daniel 2:21, where Yahweh causes kings to stand [qm]. If nothing else, this back reference clearly demonstrates Yahweh’s unqualified sovereignty over human political history. That is, Yahweh removes and establishes political leadership throughout history [Daniel 2:21]. In addition, Yahweh terminates them [Daniel 2:44e] and establishes [qm] 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 reb 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

798 Russell, Daniel, 55. 799 The main verb is /will stand [Pe’al, imperfect, 3rd, fm, sg]. 800 For the contrastive function of the conjunction, waw, see Bauer-Leander § 70 p. 801 Bauer-Leander § 72 a.

802 See the lexical notes above on Daniel 2:21 for will stand [qm]. 803 The line is a causal line, opening with the causal marker: ; the main verb is /you

saw [Pe’al, perfect, 2nd, ms, sg]; the main verb in the first relative clause is /was cut [Ithpe’el, perfect, 3rd, fm, sg]; the final relative is /with hands [preposition () prefixed to a noun, fm, dual] /without [negative adverb].

[127]


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: Yahweh’s 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 Ithpe’el 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 lion’s 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, Kohler-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].

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].

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 KB2, 1806. 807 Goldingay, 52.

[128]


The Aramaic noun translated mountain is used only twice in Daniel [2:35, 45]. This Aramaic noun does have a Hebrew cognate [tsr] 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 [tsr] and Yahweh, at least in terms of Daniel’s intent in 2:45a. It is best to simply note the use of the Hebrew cognate [tsr] 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 zqf qtn, 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 zqf qtn, 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

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 Haph’el 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.

808 See the notes on Daniel 2:34a. 809 The main verb is /and it destroyed [Haph’el, perfect, 3rd, 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 [Haph’el, perfect, 3rd, ms, sg]; the verb in the relative is /will happen [Pe’al, imperfect, 3rd, ms, sg].

811 Andersen, Sentence, 36. 812 Ibid., 53.

813 Van Pelt, 143; Rosenthal § 99.


[129]


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 [hw] 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 [achar] 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 Kohler-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 [ elh]. 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 Daniel’s theology [see Daniel 2:20-23]. What is more, 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 Yahweh’s might [teqp]. At least for Nebuchadnezzar, Yahweh’s 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 [yeda ] what is in darkness. So it is here; the mystery

815 Ibid., § 78 f.

816 Van Pelt, 91. 817 Bauer-Leander § 69 a; Rosenthal § 84. 818 Ibid., § 68 v.

819 KB2, 1810r; also BDB, 1079r.

820 Holladay, 397. 821 See Van Pelt, 26; see also IBHS, 13.4.

822 BDB, 1112r.

823 LSJ, 1088.

[130]


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 Haph’el stem of this verb [yeda ] 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 Daniel’s report of the dream – true [yetsab] – 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

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,

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 KB2, 1893r.

827 Bauer-Leander § 51 e.

[131]


(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 Nebuchadnezzar’s 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 Daniel’s 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 Daniel’s 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 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 Daniel’s interpretation to Nebuchadnezzar.828 In Daniel 2:46, the narrative concerns Nebuchadnezzar’s homage to Daniel. In Daniel 2:48, the narrative subject is the king’s rewarding of Daniel. And, in 2:49, the narrative relates Daniel’s request for patronage for his three comrades.

Embedded within the narrative genre, we also have Nebuchadnezzar’s doxology in praise of Yahweh in Daniel 2:47.829

Homage to Daniel, 2:46

828 Collins, FOTL, 114. 829 Ibid., 108.

[132]


Daniel 2:46a Then, King Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face is a line that is punctuated with a zqf qtn, indicating a slight pause in the reading of the line.

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 king’s immediate response to all of this was. The coordinating conjunction that is used [bedayin] functions to underline what happened at once upon Nebuchadnezzar’s 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.

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 King’s self-humiliation and show of respect [2:46a] meant.834

Lexical: the sense of paid homage [segid] leads the reader into a theological thicket. As far as the verb itself goes, the reader may infer that segid 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.

830 The main verb is /fell [Pe’al, perfect, 3rd, ms, sg]. 831 Bauer-Leander § 68 b. 832 BDB, 1103r.

833 The main verb is /paid homage [Pe’al, perfect, 3rd, ms].

834 For this use of the conjunction, waw, see Bauer-Leander § 70 r. 835 KB2, 1937r; BDB, 1104r; and Holladay, 414r.

836 The verb [segid] 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].

[133]


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 (nchach), and [3] to be offered (nesak).

[1] The term offering [minch] is used only here in Daniel. Kohler-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 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 [nchach] 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 nchach in Daniel 2:46 in the sense of incense offering.844 Kohler-Baumgartner notes that nchach is a loanword from Hebrew [nch] that means appeasement.845

As far as the Hebrew cognate [nch ach] is concerned, it may be translated a soothing or tranquilizing aroma that is satisfying to Yahweh.846

837 The two direct objects are /and an incense offering [noun, ms, pl] /and an offering [noun, fm, sg]; the verbal construction uses a finite verb with an infinitive. The finite verb is /he ordered [Pe’al, perfect, 3rd, ms] and the infinitive complement is /to be offered [preposition (), Pa’el, infinitive construct].

838 Bauer-Leander § 70 r. 839 KB2, 1920r.

840 Holladay, 412. 841 C.J. Labuschagne, “,” in TLOT 2, 780. 842 Richard Averbeck, “,” in NIDOTTE [H4966]. 843 KB2, 1930r; BDB, 1102r; Holladay, 417r. 844 F. Stolz, “,” in TLOT 2, 723. 845 KB2, 1930.

846 BDB, 629.

[134]


[3] The infinitive – to be offered [nsak] – implies some sort of sacrifice. Kohler-Baumgartner translate nsak 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 Nebuchadnezzar’s 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 Daniel’s point of view, if Daniel understood this royal cultural phenomenon, then his silence is understandable. 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 Nebuchadnezzar’s response. The line is punctuated with a reb 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

847 KB2, 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 fr die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 85 (1973), 85.

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] /truth [noun, ms, sg]/of [preposition]; the predicate of the nominal clause is /Gods [noun, ms, pl] /God of [noun, ms, sg, construct].

[135]


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 king’s doxology – Daniel’s 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 [mn] 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 king’s 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 àtnach, pointing to the major pause in the reading of the line.

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 king’s 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 [gel] of mysteries [rz].

854 See GKC § 143.

855 Rosenthal § 80; see also KB2, 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 Nebuchadnezzar’s subsequent action in chapter three.

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 [Pe’al, participle, ms, sg].

859 Beekman and Callow, 258.

860 KB2, 1922r.

[136]


As a revealer [gel], 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 [gel] 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 [gel] of mysteries [rz]. 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 [rz], the king is admitting that there are some circumstances that are simply beyond human comprehension. Even the most advanced of the king’s cabinet of advisors were intellectually helpless in uncovering the gist of the king’s 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

Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:47d is signaled by the causal use of the coordinating conjunction.864 Nebuchadnezzar’s praise of God in 2:47b-c is based upon results: Daniel was able, through Divine help, to resolve the king’s mystery.

Daniel is Rewarded, 2:48

Daniel 2:48a Then, the king exalted Daniel is a line that is punctuated with a reb 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 [reb]. The Pa’el stem of the verb signals causation.866 The causal sense of this verb yields translations such as to make great or to make

861 See the notes on Daniel 2:19 for the details of this verb. 862 For the gory details on the word mystery [rz], see the notes on Daniel 2:18.

863 The main verb is /you were able [Pe’al, perfect, 2nd, ms, sg]; the infinitive is /to resolve [Pe’al, infinitive construct]; and the direct object is /mystery [definite article, noun, ms, sg].

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 [Pa’el, perfect, 3rd, ms]. 866 See Van Pelt, 131.

[137]


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, Daniel’s 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 king’s honors?870 The fact of the matter is that there is nothing explicit in the text to let us in on Daniel’s 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 God’s people, bowing with their face to the dust [Isaiah 49:23].872 Daniel already understands the former point concerning Yahweh’s sovereignty [Daniel 2:20-23]. Possibly, for Daniel, a logical extension of Yahweh’s 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 Yahweh’s 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 zqf qtn, 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 Daniel’s rule, expressed in a prepositional phrase – over the entire province of Babylon.874

867 KB2, 1977r.

868 Holladay, 420r. 869 Driver, 32. 870 Montgomery, 182. 871 Ibid. 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 [Haph’el, perfect, 3rd, ms, sg, with a 3rd, ms,

sg, suffix]; the range of Daniel’s rule is /Babylon /province of [noun, fm, sg, construct]/all of [noun, ms, sg, construct] /over [preposition].

[138]


Syntax: the syntactical function of Daniel 2:48c is to carry forward the thread of the reward narrative.

The syntactical-semantic thrust of the Haph’el 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 Nebuchadnezzar’s power to promote quite clear.

The prepositional phrase teases out the extent of Daniel’s rule – over the entire province. The sense of the noun – entire [kl] – means the whole of or the entirety of.876 The extent of Daniel’s 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 power over.877 The term describes one who is a high official, one who has power, governance, dominion, and authority.878 Rosenthal translates the Haph’el 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, Nebuchadnezzar’s, 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

875 Van Pelt, 143; Rosenthal § 99. 876 See Rosenthal § 96; KB2, 1898r. 877 KB2, 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 Daniel’s 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 doesn’t 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 Daniel’s life in politics. The reader may make what she/he will of this silence, but the book’s silence on Daniel’s governmental career is

[139]


[2] The king made Daniel a political power over the entire province [medn] of Babylon. The medn is an administrative district within the Persian Empire, a satrap or a province.883 Both BDB and Holladay understand the medn to be a judicial district or an administrative district.884

The medn as a judicial district would have been a prefecture where justice was administered. Richard Schultz writes that the medn “designates a province or administrative or judicial district.”885 Furthermore, to the extent that medn is derived from the verbal root dn, the activity in view is administrating binding judgment in a legal procedure.886 From Daniel’s 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, 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 Daniel’s administrative promotion.

Lexical: the term of primary interest is prefect [segan]. The lexicons are more or less uniform in glossing segan with prefect or governor.889 Kohler-Baumgartner offers an Ancient Near Eastern Late

deafening. 883 KB2, 1911-12. 884 BDB, 1088r; Holladay, 411r.

885 Richard Schultz, “,” in NIDOTTE [H1906].

886 G. Liedke, “,” in TLOT 1, 335. 887 Montgomery, 182. 888 The subject of the line is /prefect [noun, ms, pl]/chief [adjective, ms, sg, construct];

the prepositional phrase is /Babylon /wise men of [noun, ms, pl, construct]/all of [noun, ms, sg, construct] /over [preposition].


[140]


Babylonian cognate, sagnu, 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 segan 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, segan, 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 Daniel’s 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.

Daniel 2:49a Then, Daniel requested of the king is a line that is punctuated with a zqf qtn, signaling a brief pause in the reading of the line. The line introduces a request that Daniel makes of the king with Nebuchadnezzar’s 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 Pa’el 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 [men] and [2] administration [bd].

The writer tells us that Nebuchadnezzar appointed [men] these three to their positions. Both BDB and Holladay render the verb to appoint in the Pa’el.895 Kohler-Baumgartner opts for install or appoint.896

890 KB2, 1937. 891 Montgomery, 183. 892 Baldwin, 95. 893 The main verb is /and he appointed [Pa’el, perfect, 3rd, ms, sg]. 894 Van Pelt, 131. 895 BDB, 1101; Holladay, 412. 896 KB2, 1920r.

[141]


There are no particular surprises here and the reader may understand the king’s action at face value.

The writer also tells us that the king made these men administrators [bd]. This term points to those who work in government service. Kohler-Baumgartner glosses the noun [bd] 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.

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 Daniel’s 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 [tera] of Nebuchadnezzar. The noun glossed court [tera] is literally a gate, but is used to refer to the court of the king.903 Montgomery notes that court [tera] means that Daniel was in the royal chancellery, and thus a member of the king’s 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 Yahweh’s 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

897 Ibid., 1942r. 898 BDB, 1105; Holladay, 415. 899 Montgomery, 183.

900 Baldwin, 95. 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 KB2, 2010r. 904 Montgomery, 183. 905 See the notes on pages 49-65, above.

[142]


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.

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 man’s moral freedom to act. The paradox is that mankind pursues its own agendas, often ignoring God, while realizing God’s 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 Nebuchadnezzar’s role in the geopolitical scheme of things. Anticipating a bit, in this back and forth between Yahweh and political power-players, God’s 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 king’s 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 book’s 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

906 See the notes above on pages 22-30.

[143]


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 king’s 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 world’s 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.

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 Yahweh’s 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 God’s 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 God’s 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 God’s 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 God’s 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.

907 See the notes on pages 62-65, above. 908 See the notes on pages 57-61, above.

[144]


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 Daniel’s preoccupation with wisdom, with the vocabulary of wisdom and with understanding.909 Those with understanding [masklm] are the insightful among the people of the world, people who discern God’s 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 God’s 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 God’s 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.

909 See the notes on pages 58-61, above.

[145]

Documents

Reader's Guidebook for Daniel 2,1-49