They answered a second time
This phrase indicates a repeated action, suggesting persistence and perhaps a growing sense of urgency or frustration. The context here is the court of King Nebuchadnezzar, where the wise men are being asked to interpret a dream without being told its content. The repetition underscores the tension in the narrative and the desperation of the wise men. Historically, the Babylonian court was known for its reliance on magicians, enchanters, and astrologers, who were expected to provide wisdom and guidance. The phrase "a second time" highlights their inability to meet the king's demands, setting the stage for Daniel's divine intervention.

May the king tell the dream to his servants
This request reflects the normal procedure for dream interpretation in ancient Near Eastern cultures, where the dreamer would recount the dream, and the interpreters would provide an explanation. The wise men are appealing to the king's reason, hoping to follow the established protocol. The term "servants" here is significant, as it denotes their role and status in the royal court. It also subtly implies their subservience and loyalty to the king, which they hope will persuade him to comply with their request.

and we will give the interpretation
This promise is a bold assertion of their confidence in their abilities, yet it is also a hollow assurance given their inability to know the dream itself. The phrase "give the interpretation" is central to the narrative, as it contrasts human wisdom with divine revelation. In the broader biblical context, this sets up a powerful demonstration of God's sovereignty and the futility of relying solely on human wisdom. The wise men's confidence is misplaced, as true understanding and interpretation come from God alone, a theme that is consistently reinforced throughout the Book of Daniel.

(7) Let the king tell.--The request was reasonable enough, according to the principles of Babylonian sorcery. Nebuchadnezzar's doubts, however, were awakened, and he was not sure of the veracity of his magicians. He speaks with great common sense (Daniel 2:9), "If you can tell me the dream, I shall be sure that your interpretation is correct."

Verse 7. - They answered again and said, Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation of it. The Septuagint Version here is, "And they answered the second time, saying, O king, tell the dream, and thy servants will judge of these things." Theodotion, the Peshitta, and the Vulgate agree with the Massoretic. The wise men are unable to satisfy the king's demands. Ewald comments on the fact that none of them had the inventiveness to make up a dream, and tell the king that had been his dream. He admits himself that there might have been risk of the king discovering the deception, if no flash of reviving memory in his mind answered to their invention. On our hypothesis that the king had not forgotten his dream, but was testing their powers, it was not only in the highest degree hazardous, but it was certain of failure. They must have known the case to be as we imagine it, or, when they were sentenced to death, they would have run the hazard, on the plea, "If we perish, we perish." There was a chance, though a faint one, of success in the attempt to palm off upon the king their own imaginings for his dream; there was a certainty of death if they did nothing. All they can do, however, is simply to repeat what they before said, "Tell us the dream, and we will find the interpretation of it." Nebuchadnezzar has often been denounced as specially foolish and tyrannical on account of this demand which he made of the wise men; but tyrannical though he was, and foolish though he seems at times, looked at from our elevation, this demand of his is not an example either of his folly or his tyranny. These soothsayers enjoyed great honour and great revenues, on the assumption that they possessed certain powers of foreseeing the future. He demands of them, instead of an enigmatical statement of what was coming on the earth, that they tell him what he had dreamed. They professed to be able to discover thefts, and where stolen property was; they professed to point out men who were devising evil against another. If their claims were true, they could surely tell the king his dream. They were thus employed and honoured in order that they should foretell to the king any fortune, good or bad, impending himself or the natron. His dream presumably foretold the future; they affirmed that they knew the future; they surely might tell the king what prophecy was made to him in his dream. Believing in the reality of their powers with all the faith of a fanatic, their refusal could only mean to him treason. They did not tell him his dream, not because they could not, but because they would not, in order that the disaster - for such he would be sure the dream portended - might not be averted by timely sacrifices. If the elaborate treatises on magic and divination which have come to us, so far as has been discovered, only in fragments, were complete, it is not impossible that we might be able to tell what interpretation these wise men would have put on the dream, had they been told it. It would be a curious exercise, for certainly Daniel's interpretation would not be the result. We must return to the versions for a little, in one respect the Septuagint is closer to the Massoretic than Theodotion, by having λέγοντες, the participle, instead of εϊπαν. We direct attention to this, with a view to the phenomenon we find in the succeeding clause. The Septuagint rendering is given above. The most noticeable thing which the reader will find about this rendering is the change of person in the last clause. As it stands in the Massoretic text, it is certainly the first person plural Imperfect pael of חוה; but in Syriac the preformative נ was the sign of the third person in the imperfect, as well as of the first person plural; hence, if there were a little uncertainty as to the end of the word, it was an easy mistake to one who was reading from a manuscript in Eastern Aramaic, but an impossible one for a scribe translating from a manuscript written in Chaldee, or Western Aramaic. It cannot be urged plausibly that the change might simply result from a free translation, for the slavish accuracy of the rest of the verse precludes that escape. As the reading of the Greek is confirmed by the version of Paulus Tel-lensis, the probability is slight of a various reading. This is another evidence that Daniel was originally written in Eastern, not Western Aramaic. It may be observed that while in the Massoretic text the verb "tell" (y'emar) is put in the imperfect, in the Septuagint it is translated as it' it were. imperative. The difference between the third person imperfect and the second person imperative is the presence, in the case of the former, of the preformative y (י), which is absent in the other. That is a thing that might easily happen, that, (yodh) might be dropped or inserted mistakenly; consequently, this affords no evidence that the Septuagint translator took liberties with his text. The question may be put, how tar these soothsayers knew they were impostors. Most likely they were unconscious of anything approaching imposition. We know the elaborate rules by which they determined the exact meaning of every sign and portent. We know how prone men are to supplement such rules by a native faculty for foreseeing what is likely to happen, and how, further, explanations may be devised to save the credit of these canons of interpretation, even when most hopelessly proved to be false by events. Archdeacon Rose appeals to modern spiritualists as examples in point, regarding both the Chaldean soothsayers and modern spiritualists as equally impostors. We feel inclined to regard them as so far alike in this - that most of both classes imposed most on themselves. The presence of these false prophets is an evidence of the existence of the true prophets at some time, at all events; there would be no counterfeit coin were there no genuine money.

Parallel Commentaries ...


They answered
עֲנ֥וֹ (‘ă·nōw)
Verb - Qal - Perfect - third person masculine plural
Strong's 6032: To answer

a second time,
תִנְיָנ֖וּת (ṯin·yā·nūṯ)
Adverb
Strong's 8579: The second time

“Let the king
מַלְכָּ֕א (mal·kā)
Noun - masculine singular determinate
Strong's 4430: A king

tell
וְאָמְרִ֑ין (wə·’ā·mə·rîn)
Conjunctive waw | Verb - Qal - Participle - masculine plural
Strong's 560: To say, tell, command

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

to his servants,
לְעַבְד֖וֹהִי (lə·‘aḇ·ḏō·w·hî)
Preposition-l | Noun - masculine plural construct | third person masculine singular
Strong's 5649: Slave, servant

and we will give
נְהַחֲוֵֽה׃ (nə·ha·ḥă·wêh)
Verb - Hifil - Imperfect - first person common plural
Strong's 2324: To show

the interpretation.”
וּפִשְׁרָ֥ה (ū·p̄iš·rāh)
Conjunctive waw | Noun - masculine singular determinate
Strong's 6591: An interpretation


Daniel 2:7 NIV
Daniel 2:7 NLT
Daniel 2:7 ESV
Daniel 2:7 NASB
Daniel 2:7 KJV

Daniel 2:7 BibleApps.com
Daniel 2:7 Biblia Paralela
Daniel 2:7 Chinese Bible
Daniel 2:7 French Bible
Daniel 2:7 Catholic Bible

OT Prophets: Daniel 2:7 They answered the second time and said (Dan. Da Dn)