The king replied to the Chaldeans
This phrase sets the stage for a dramatic encounter between King Nebuchadnezzar and the Chaldeans, who were known as wise men or astrologers in Babylon. The Chaldeans were a priestly class, skilled in interpreting dreams and omens. Historically, Babylon was a center of learning and wisdom, and the Chaldeans were considered the intellectual elite. The king's engagement with them highlights the gravity of his dream and his desperation for a true interpretation.

My decree is firm
The word "decree" in this context refers to an authoritative order issued by the king. In ancient Near Eastern cultures, a king's decree was considered unchangeable and carried the weight of law. The firmness of the decree underscores Nebuchadnezzar's determination and the seriousness with which he regarded the dream. It reflects the absolute power of the king and the expectation of obedience from his subjects.

If you do not tell me the dream and its interpretation
This demand is unprecedented and highlights the king's suspicion and distrust of his advisors. Typically, dream interpreters would be given the dream to interpret, but Nebuchadnezzar's insistence that they recount the dream itself suggests he doubted their honesty or ability. This phrase emphasizes the king's desire for genuine insight and the divine nature of the revelation he seeks.

you will be torn limb from limb
This phrase describes a brutal form of execution, reflecting the severe consequences of failing the king. In ancient times, such punishments were not uncommon and served as a deterrent to disobedience. The graphic nature of the threat illustrates the king's anger and the high stakes involved in this situation. It also sets the stage for God's intervention through Daniel, contrasting human cruelty with divine wisdom and mercy.

and your houses will be reduced to rubble
The destruction of one's home was a symbol of complete ruin and disgrace. In the ancient world, a person's house was not just a physical structure but represented their legacy and family line. This threat indicates total obliteration, not just of the individuals but of their memory and lineage. It underscores the king's absolute authority and the dire consequences of failing to meet his demands.

(5) Is gone from me.--This difficult word, the etymology of which is very uncertain, appears only here and Daniel 2:8. It seems to mean, "The order has been published by me (comp. Esther 7:7; Isaiah 45:23), and therefore cannot be recalled."

Cut in pieces.--This was by no means an uncommon form of punishment: (See Smith's Assurbanipal, pp. 137, 245.)

Verse 5 - The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me if ye will not make known unto me the dream, with the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill. The version of the LXX. has slight but important differences from the Massoretic text. It is as follows "And the king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me: if therefore ye do not tell me the dream truly and show me the interpretation thereof, ye shall be made an example of, and your goods shall be escheat to the royal treasury." Theodotion renders the last portion of the verse, "ye shall be destroyed (εἰς ἀπώλειαν ἔσεσθε), and your houses shall be plundered (διαρπαγήσονται)." The Peshitta is closer to the Massoretic, but, like Theodotion, softens the last clause into "plundered." The Vulgate retains the fierceness of the Massoretic, softened merely in phrase, not in meaning. The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me. The first thing to be noticed is the difference of the Q'ri and the K'thib in the word "Chaldean;" it is written כשׂדיא, according to the Syriac usage, not כשׂדאי according to the Chaldee. As the Book of Daniel was copied and recopied many times, probably at least scores of' times before, on the latest assignable critic d date of Daniel, the Massoretic text was fixed, and copied mainly by those whose language was Western not Eastern Aramaic. the occurrence of Syriac forms is more likely to be survivals from a Syriac original than insertions, either accidental or intentional. When the differences are so slight as those between Eastern and Western Aramaic, the tendency is to remove them rather than to accentuate them. The older interpretation of mill tha, "thing" or "word," was to take it as referring to the dream - that it was the matter that had gone from him. This, however, depends to a large degree on the moaning to be attached to ozda. Is it to be regarded as equivalent to azla, as if it were derived from אֲזַל, "to go;" or is azda to be regarded as Persian azdu, "sure," "diligent"? Delitzsch suggests azanda. "known." The two Greek versions render, ὁ λόγος ἀπ ἐμοῦ ἀπέστη, a phrase which may either be "the word has gone from me," or "the matter has departed from me," the latter being the more natural, from the meaning of ἀφίστημι. The Peshitta rendering is, "Sure is the word I have spoken." The older commentators have mainly taken this sentence as asserting that Nebuchadnezzar had forgotten the dream; Calvin. however, does so only because he feels himself compelled to take ver. 8 as meaning this; while Jephet-ibn-Ali and others assume this to be the meaning of the phrase. Aben Ezra takes azda as meaning "firm" or sure. Berthohlt, among moderns, maintains that millitha is "the dream." Most others assert the sentence to mean, "The word which has gone forth from me is sure;" this is also Professor Bevan's interpretation. Hitzig's view here is peculiar: he would translate, "For the matter is important to me." This view does not suit ver. 8. The lexicons differ in this. Winer first gives elapsus est, abiit, then adds, "unless rather it be derived from the Arabic (atzad), 'strong,' or from the Rabbinic אָזַד, robustus." Buxtorf does give the alleged Rabbinic use of the verb, but gives reference only to occurrence in the passage before us and ver. 8, and renders abire. Gesenius renders, "to depart," and quotes in support of this the Rabbinic formula, אזדא לטצמים, "to go to one's own opinion," spoken of a rabbi who holds a view not shared by any other. At the same time, Gesenius gives a meaning to the clause as a whole which accords with that of most commentators, "The word has gone out from me." Furst takes the word as meaning "firm," "sure," "unalterable." He too quotes the Rabbinic formula, as if it confirmed his view, which really it does not. Castell gives as robur, but appends no reference. Brockelmann does not give it at all, nor does Levy. Had Castell given any reference, it might have been argued to be a survival of a Syriac word through transcription; but we must remain in doubt in this, all the more so that the Peshitta does not transfer the word, which it would naturally have done had the word been extant in Syriac in A.D. . This would make it probable that it is an old word. The fact that it is used in Talmudic only in a formula, and then in a sense unsuitable to the present passage, confirms the idea of its age. It had probably a technical meaning, denoting that a certain matter was irrevocable. The Persian derivation of the word is by no means certain, though supported by Schrader and Noehleke. It may have a Shemitic root. אזז (azoz) Assyrian (Schrader, 526), "to be firm," may be the Assyrian form of the word, which becomes אזד in Syriac, and אזדא in status emphatieus. In Aramaic ז of Hebrew becomes ד, as זָהַב (zabab) and דְהַב (dehab), "gold." The Assyrian use of sibilants is more akin to Hebrew than to Aramaic. Sa, "this," is equivalent to זֶה (zeh), Schrader, 'Keiln.,' 586. If אזז were transferred from Assyrian and put in the status emphaticus, אַזְדָא is not an unlikely form for it to assume. Even grant the word to be Persian, it is far from proving, or even rendering it probable, that Daniel was composed in the days of the Maccabees. There is no trace of Persian producing much effect on the language of the numerous peoples that were subject to the Persian empire. There is no sign that the word was known in Palestine during the time when the Targums were becoming fixed. In Alexandria, where the Septuagint version of Daniel was made, the meaning of the word was not known, and was thought to be equivalent to אזל (azal). In Asia Minor, where Theodotion made his version, it was unknown. Jerome, who made his version, if not in Palestine, yet under Pales-tinian guidance, translates it also as equivalent to azal. The natural conclusion is that this book must have been composed not later than the Persian period, and not far from the centre of government. As we have already said, our interpretation agrees with that of Professor Bevan; we would render the phrase, "The word which has gone forth from me," i.e., "is fixed." The reason of the king's refusal to tell the wise men his dream is that he cannot do it, net because he has forgotten it, but because he has already announced that he wishes these soothsayers to prove their ability to give the interpretation of the dream by telling him what the dream was which he had had. He has committed himself to that course; he is a king, and he may not change, If ye will not make known to me the dream, with the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill. The king, unaccustomed to be opposed or refused anything, at once determines that it is not inability to tell him what he wishes to know that hinders the soothsayers, but unwillingness. Of course, the abruptness of the action, immediate sentence pronounced on their hesitating to satisfy his demand, seems improbable. We must, however, remember that we have the account given us in the utmost brevity. We have the substance of the dialogue between the king and his astrologers. It is put in dialogue form simply because the Shemitic tongues naturally lend themselves to this mode of presentation. The sentence, "ye shall be cut in pieces," suggests some of the punishments inflicted by Asshurbanipal on those who rebelled against him. In the Aramaic the meaning literally is, "Ye shall be made pieces of." This is considerably softened in both the Greek versions. In the LXX. the rendering is, Παρὰ δειγματισθήσεσθε, "Ye shall be made an example of." Theodotion renders, Αἰς ἀπώλειαν ἔσεσθε, "Ye shall be for destruction." The Peshitta is stronger, if anything, from the succession of words, "Piece piece ye shall be cut." The punishment certainly was horrible, but not more so than the punishment David inflicted on the murderers of Ishbosheth. Indeed, in European countries a century and a half ago punishments yet more revolting were frequent. The punishment for treason in our own country was as horrible as anything well could be. The sentence, however, went further than merely the individuals. And your houses shall be made a dunghill. In the 'Records of the Past,' 1:27, 43, are references to something like this. "houses reduced to heaps of rubbish." That the houses thus made heaps of rubbish should therefore be made dunghills, is in perfect accordance with the manners at present holding in the East. The rendering of the Septuagint is very peculiar here, "And your goods shall be escheat to tire royal treasury (καὶ ὀναληφθήσεται ὑμῶν τὰ ὑπάρχοντα εἰς τὸ βασιλίκον)." This cannot be due to any desire to soften the meaning, for in the first place, in Daniel 7:29, where the same phrase occurs in the Aramaic, it is paraphrased, but not really changed; it is rendered δημευθήσεται. But further, the meaning here is perfectly different from that in the Aramaic of the Masse,retie recension. Theodotion's rendering is a softening of the Massoretic, "Your houses shall be (διαρπαγήσονται) torn down;" but the Septuagint quite changes the meaning. If the translator had a slightly blurred copy before him, he might read נזלו instead of נולי; that is to say, instead of "a dunghill," he read it as the third person plural pael of the verb אֲזַלַ (azal), "to go." When written in Sama-titan characters, or in old Phoenican characters, the last word would not be unlike למלך, "to the king." This is the only explanation of this variation that seems feasible, and it implies that the manuscript before the Septuagint translator was written in Eastern, not Western Aramaic. The pre-formative נ, used as the sign of the third person, is the peculiarity of Eastern Aramaic. The translator must have bad this generally before him in his manuscript, or he never could have made this mistake. This is another indication that the Aramaic of Daniel was originally not Chaldee, but Syriac. We can imagine the striking scene: on the one wide the haughty young conqueror, blazing in indignation at the obstinate refusal, as he counts it, of his soothsayers and augurs to tell him his dream and the meaning of it; on the other, the crouching crowd of magicians, astrologers, and oneiromantists, dispirited and nonplussed. Brought up in an absolute faith in astrology and augury, the king never doubted their ability to tell him his dream; it could only be a treasonable desire to hinder him from taking the suitable steps to avoid whatever danger might be threatened by it, or to gain whatever advantage might be promised. They would not tell him the dream, because by their rules the interpretation would be fixed, and from that they could I not escape. The king will not and cannot reverse his word, and they cannot tell him what he desires, and so they stand facing each other.

Parallel Commentaries ...


The king
מַלְכָּא֙ (mal·kā)
Noun - masculine singular determinate
Strong's 4430: A king

replied
עָנֵ֤ה (‘ā·nêh)
Verb - Qal - Participle - masculine singular
Strong's 6032: To answer

to the astrologers,
לְכַשְׂדָּאֵ֔י (lə·ḵaś·dā·’ê)
Preposition-l | Noun - proper - masculine plural
Strong's 3779: Chaldeans -- a Chaldaean

“My word
מִלְּתָ֖א (mil·lə·ṯā)
Noun - feminine singular determinate
Strong's 4406: A word, command, discourse, subject

is final:
אַזְדָּ֑א (’az·dā)
Adjective - feminine singular
Strong's 230: Sure, assured

If
הֵ֣ן (hên)
Conjunction
Strong's 2006: Lo!, there, less, whether, but, if

you do not
לָ֤א (lā)
Adverb - Negative particle
Strong's 3809: Not, no

tell me
תְהֽוֹדְעוּנַּ֙נִי֙ (ṯə·hō·wḏ·‘ūn·na·nî)
Verb - Hifil - Imperfect - second person masculine plural | first person common singular
Strong's 3046: To know

the dream
חֶלְמָ֣א (ḥel·mā)
Noun - masculine singular determinate
Strong's 2493: A dream

and its interpretation,
וּפִשְׁרֵ֔הּ (ū·p̄iš·rêh)
Conjunctive waw | Noun - masculine singular construct | third person masculine singular
Strong's 6591: An interpretation

you will be cut
תִּתְעַבְד֔וּן (tiṯ·‘aḇ·ḏūn)
Verb - Hitpael - Imperfect - second person masculine plural
Strong's 5648: To do, make, prepare, keep

into pieces
הַדָּמִין֙ (had·dā·mîn)
Noun - masculine plural
Strong's 1917: Something stamped to pieces, a bit

and your houses
וּבָתֵּיכ֖וֹן (ū·ḇāt·tê·ḵō·wn)
Conjunctive waw, Preposition-b | Noun - masculine plural construct
Strong's 1005: A house

will be reduced
יִתְּשָׂמֽוּן׃ (yit·tə·śā·mūn)
Verb - Hitpael - Imperfect - third person masculine plural
Strong's 7761: To set, make

to rubble.
נְוָלִ֥י (nə·wā·lî)
Noun - feminine singular
Strong's 5122: A refuse heap


Daniel 2:5 NIV
Daniel 2:5 NLT
Daniel 2:5 ESV
Daniel 2:5 NASB
Daniel 2:5 KJV

Daniel 2:5 BibleApps.com
Daniel 2:5 Biblia Paralela
Daniel 2:5 Chinese Bible
Daniel 2:5 French Bible
Daniel 2:5 Catholic Bible

OT Prophets: Daniel 2:5 The king answered the Chaldeans The thing (Dan. Da Dn)