THE MOUNTAIN WHERE THE STONE WAS CUT OUT IN DANIEL 2:45: AN EXEGETICAL AND THEOLOGICAL STUDY Dindo

C. Paglinawan MAR-OT Student, AIIAS

Introduction The dream of Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 2 is comprised of the great metallic image (gold, silver, bronze, iron, and iron and clay), the stone cut out without hands, and the mountain where the stone was cut out (vv. 31-35, 45).1 Accordingly, the four various metals represent the four different kingdoms, the feet of partly iron and clay signifies a divided kingdom (vv. 36-43), meanwhile the stone stands for the kingdom of God (vv. 44, 45).2 Interestingly, of all the elements in Nebuchadnezzars dream, only the mountain was not given with interpretation by Daniel. What is then the possible interpretation of the mountain in Dan 2:45? Is the mountain in Dan 2:45 one and the same with a great mountain in Dan 2:35 that comes from the stone? With the rich imagery and symbolism employed in Dan 2, one would expect that the mountain calls for a figurative interpretation. It is hope that this paper would offer a biblical and theological perspective of the mountain in Dan 2:45.
1

A parallel reading of v. 34 and v. 45 shows that the stone that stuck the metallic image and broke them in pieces was cut out from the mountain ( in Aramaic) by no human hands. This suggests that the mountain is part of the entire scene of the dream. In addition, the LXX writes mountain ( in Greek) both in v. 34 and v.45. See The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament and Apocrypha (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1981). The activity of Gods kingdom in v. 44 that breaks these kingdoms in pieces is comparable ( as or according to) to the breaking activity of the stone in v. 45 that breaks the image in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold.
2

Text and Translation In order to deal with the mountain in Dan 2:45, it is essential to consider a translation of the passage. Below is the Aramaic text of Dan 2:45 and its corresponding literal translation. Note that the passage shows no serious variant reading, except that the pauci manuscript reads instead of . For just as you saw that a stone was cut out 3 from the mountain without hands and it crushed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold, the great God has made known to the king what will be after this; and the dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy.

Literary Analysis The passage under investigation is indivisible from the context of Dan 2, where the dream of the great image is recorded. The narrative in Dan 2 is written in a highly structured manner that it shows a logical flow of the story beginning with king Nebuchadnezzar in the state of confusion (vv. 1-45) and ends with him at the state of being enlightened (vv. 46-49). Moreover, the idea of the sections of this chapter is even clear cut and is sufficient enough to relate what exactly transpires in the narrative. Thus by just looking at the headings of the sections of Dan 2, one would get into the events of the story. Loosely summed up, the outline of the sections in Dan 2 is presented to show which specific unit the mountain should be understood.
3

The pauci manuscript, that is, the 3-10 (1/2 S: 3-6) codices manuscripti, renders instead of .The reason for this rendering is not clear, but it is probable that the reading of is offered for the reason of consistency, given the fact that v. 34 renders . 2

I. Nebuchadnezzars dream and the demand to know it along with its interpretation (vv. 1-11).4 II. The edict of killing the wise men, Daniel requested for an appointed time to interpret the dream (vv. 12-16).5 III. Daniel entreated God and God answered him by revealing the dream and its interpretation (vv. 17-23). IV. The request not to kill the wise men, Daniel conditioned the mind of the king to receive the dream and its interpretation (vv. 24-30). V. The dream of the great image is told and its interpretation is given (vv. 31-5). VI. Nebuchadnezzars acknowledgement of God and the promotion of Daniel and his friends (vv. 46-49). The sections of Dan 2 have shown that the mountain in v. 45 is part of the unit of the telling of the dream and its interpretation (vv. 31-45). Here Daniel recounts that the four different metals symbolize the four different kingdoms (vv. 38-40), the feet of partly iron and clay stands for the divided kingdom (vv. 41-43), and the stone cut out from the mountain represents the kingdom of God (vv. 44-45). When considering the metals and other elements in the dream, one would recognized that it depreciates in terms of value, ranging down from gold to silver, to bronze, to iron (with feet of partly iron and clay), and then to a mere stone cut out from the mountain.6 Looking at another perspective, the metals/elements, however, are increasing in terms of strength, escalating from gold to William H. Shea, Daniel: A Readers Guide (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2005), 333, states that Nebuchadnezzar had not forgotten the dream completely, for if he did, he could not have been troubled and his sleep could not have been disturbed. Class handouts for OTST 671 Exegesis of the Book of Daniel, Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies, Silang, Cavite, Philippines, 1st semester 2011, 29, notes that it is a bold step for the king to kill the wise men of the kingdom. Not counting the stone element, several scholars have seen the regression of the metals in the aspect of value. See e.g., Class handouts for OTST 671 Exegesis of the Book of Daniel, 32; Frederick J. Murphy, Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, The New Interpreters Bible, vol. 7, ed. Leander E. Keck (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1996), 54; Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, The New American Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of the Holy Scriptures, vol. 14, Proverbs to Song of Songs (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 91. 3
6 5 4

silver, to bronze, to iron (with feet of partly iron and clay), and then to a stone cut out from the mountain.7 In this respect, the increasing strength of the metals/elements or even the mere mention of the metals/elements, is likely a fitting depiction of the strength of the kingdoms that will occupy in the stage of history one after another. In the scheme of Nebuchadnezzars dream, the stone which was cut out of the mountain is last in the order of metals/elements, yet it crushes into pieces the great metallic image. Undoubtedly, the stone is stronger than the rest of the metals/elements. In some books of the OT, the stone figuratively denotes strength, firmness, and hardness (e.g., Job 6:12; 41:24; Ezek 11:19). Moreover, it is said that the stone was cut out from the mountain (Dan 2:45). The physicality of the mountain itself tells of its extreme durability. In this sense, the imagery of the mountain where the stone was derived adds quality to the strength of the stone. However, in Daniel, the imagery of the mountain is not only understood in its physical characteristics just as the metals of the great image and the stone do not only depict of its own characteristics, but essentially represent kingdoms. What then the mountain depicts of more than its physicality? Word Study of Mountain The book of Daniel is written in two different languages, namely; Aramaic (2:47:28) and Hebrew (1:1-2:3; 8:1-12:13).8 Before going further, a significant concept must
7

Ernest Lucas, Daniel, Apollos Old Testament Commentary, vol. 20, eds. David W. Baker and Gordon J. Wenham (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002), 74, states that the dream describes of progressively baser materials from gold to clay, in which according to such schemes, it projects of the successive world kingdoms which are progressively mightier. Zdravko Stefanovic, The Aramaic of Daniel in the Light of Old Aramaic, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 129 (JSOT), eds. David J. A. 4
8

be noted that in Dan 2, although Daniel wrote in Aramaic, but he thought largely in Hebrew. This supposition is evident by his use of the terms, for e.g., stone ( ,)cut out ( ,)and mountain ( .)Such terms cannot be not fully understood in Daniel alone, except one would consider their Hebrew counterparts. Intriguingly, the Hebrew equivalent of the Aramaic terms is almost the same in terms of characters and phonetic value as indicated in the diagram below.

Aramaic

Hebrew

The close resemblance or even similarity of these terms seems to suggest that Daniel may have employed play of words in his writing. Indeed he wrote in Aramaic, but he had the Hebrew concept in his mind. In this respect, it is very important to consider the Hebrew counterpart of the Aramaic mountain in order to get a balance understanding of the topic. The word study of the mountain, nevertheless, should begin in its Aramaic uses in the Bible since Dan 2:45 is written in Aramaic section. The in Aramaic Bible The Aramaic term for mountain is ,which literally means row with reference to building-stones.9 It is of interest to note that the Aramaic and Hebrew Lexicons do not

Clines and Philip R. Davies (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1992), 27; T. J. Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel, JSOT 198 (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1995), 16, 22. See Francis Brown, S. Driver, and C. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (BDB) (1996), s. v. ;William L. Holladay 5
9

sustain the meaning mountain for .In Dan 2, English versions, however, translate as mountain.10 There is no explanation provided for the translation mountain for ,but the likelihood to account this translation, is its Hebrew equivalent 11,which could also mean hill.12 The word mountain in Aramaic appears just twice in the OT, only in Dan 2:35 and Dan 2:45. In Dan 2:35, the prophet mentioned that the stone that struck the image became a great mountain ( )and filled the whole earth. Here the stone is said to be the derivative substance of a great mountain. If the stone is the substance of a great mountain, it follows that a great mountain is stony in nature. In Dan 2:45, on the other hand, Daniel said that the stone that broke the image into pieces was cut out from the mountain ( .)In this case, logically, one would think that the mountain is stony given the fact that part of it, a stone, which was cut out from it, is indeed a stone. The in Hebrew As had been noted, the Hebrew equivalent of the Aramaic is ,which literally means rock, boulder, large rock, or hill.13 This term recurs 73 times in

ed. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (CHALOT) (1988), s. v. ;Benjamin Davidson, The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (1979), s. v. .
10

See e.g., ESV, KJV, NIV, NASB, RSV, NLT, NKJV, etc.

William Holladay, James Strong and Andrew Hill, consider as the Hebrew counter part of .See CHALOT, s. v. ;James Strong, The New Strongs Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (NSEECB) (2010), s. v. .
12

11

See NSEECB, s. v. .

For the shades of meaning of ,see Andrew E. Hill, ,New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (NIDOTTE), ed. Willem A. 6

13

the OT (not counting the verbal root and the proper name Zur),14 largely referring to boulders or large mass of rocks (e.g., 1 Sam 21:10; 24:3; Ps 78:20), but some other , however, are small rocks (e.g, Job 22:24; Jer 18:14). There are several uses of in the Hebrew Bible. In literal sense, serves as location of standing (e.g., Exod 17:6; 33:21) and lookout post where one could get a good sight (Num 23:9). With particular significance, serves as source of wine, oil, and honey (Deut 32:13; Ps 81:17; Job 29:6), as source of water from which God satisfies the thirst of His people (e.g., Ps 78:15, 20; 105:41; 114:8), and as hiding places of men (e.g., 1 Sam 24:3; 1 Chro 11:15; Isa 2:10). More importantly, is used as location of Yahwehs encounter with men (Exod 33:21-22; 1 Kgs 19:11) and as altar location where Gods people put on their sacrifices to Him (Judg 6:1; 13:9). In figurative sense, is associated with Gods omnipotence with the moving of rocks (e.g., Job 14:18; 18:4), and is used as depiction of Gods wrath poured out like fire such that rocks are broken in pieces (Nah 1:6).15 An excellent figure of in the OT is its uses with reference to God. Of the 74 occurrences of in Hebrew, 34 of which are used as epithet or description for God.16 Yahweh is described as the rock (e.g., Deut 32:4; VanGemeren (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997), 3:793; NSEECB, s. v. ; CHALOT, s. v. ;BDB, s. v. .
14

The counting is based on BibleWorks 8 (Norfolk, VA: BibleWorks, 2009).

See Bon H. Farby, ,Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (TDOT), eds. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), 12:315. See Deut 32:4, 15, 18, 30, 31; 1 Sam 2:2; 2 Sam 22:3, 32, 47 [2x]; 23:3; Ps 18:3, 32, 47; 19:15; 27:5; 28:1; 31:3; 61:3; 62:3, 7, 8; 71:3; 78:35; 89:7; 92:15; 94:22; 95:1; 144:1; Isa 8:14; 17:10; 26:4; 30:29; 44:8; 51:1; Hab 1:12.
16

15

1 Sam 2:2; Ps 18:32; Isa 44:8; Hab 1:12), the rock of salvation (e.g., Deut 32:15; 1 Sam 22:47; Ps 62:3, 7; 89:7), the rock of refuge, fortress, and shield (e.g., 1 Sam 22:3; Ps 31:3; 71:3), a mighty rock (Ps 62:8), the deliverer and redeemer rock (e.g., Ps 18:3; 19:15), a rock of offense (Isa 8:14), and an everlasting rock (Isa 26:4). The Mountain in Ancient Near East (ANE) The Ugaritic term for mountain (based on , ,and )is r.17 This root basically associates with the notion from a cosmological and mythological point of view.18 It is said that when Baal raises his voice, the earth () and the hills (gb`) trembles and shakes.19 The inhabited world was understood as bordered by two mountains (Mount of Targhuzizza and Mount of Tharumegi), beyond which began the realm of Mot.20 Moreover, there are also mountains in the underworld (e.g., Mount of Kankaniya), which Baal must seek out after he has died.21 However, Baal dwells in Mount Zaphon.22 El, on the other hand, dwells on Mount of El (r ll) for it is where he built his palace.23 Farby, ,213:21 ,information derived from M. Dahood, Ras Shamra Parallels: The Texts from Ugarit on the Hebrew, ed. L. R. Fisher et. al., Analecta Orietalia (Rome, 1972).
18 17

Farby, .213:21 ,

Ibid., derived from Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (ANET), ed. J. B. Pritchard (Princeton, 1969), 135.
20

19

Farby, ,213:21 ,derived from ANET, 135. Ibid. Louvin Lipinski, ,TDOT, 12:438-440. Farby, ,213:21 ,derived from ANET, 130 8

21

22

23

With the association of the gods on the mountains, the people made them as centers of worship where they could meet and invoke the blessings of the gods.24 The peoples of Ancient Mesopotamia (modern name Babylon) thought Kammer Duku, bright mountain of the east, as the place where the gods fixed destiny on New Years Day.25 On the western mountain is Mashu, where heaven and the underworld meet, and where is also the entrance of the realm of the dead.26 The mountains in Syria-Palestine were worshipped and made as places of worship.27 And mount Zaphon north of Ras Shamra was worshipped.28 In view of the word study of the mountain, it has shown in Aramaic that the mountain ( )in Dan 2:45, essentially is stony in nature or mountain rock. In the same vein, in Hebrew, ( a counterpart of the Aramaic )is a boulder, or large rock. It is interesting that almost half (34x) of the 73 occurrences of in the OT are used as metaphor of God, describing Yahweh as the rock, rock of refuge and fortress, rock of salvation and offense, deliverer and redeemer rock, and a mighty and everlasting rock. In ANE, the sense is almost the same, only that the pagans associate mountains with the gods treated mountains as dwelling places of the gods and locations of worship. Gary A. Lee, Hill, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), 2:715. For the examples provided, see W. Foerster, ros, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TNDT), eds. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-1976), 1:475.
26 25 24

Ibid. Ibid. Lipinski, .044-834 ,

27

28

Linguistics Analysis of Mountain in Dan 2 Although the mountain (Aram. ,Heb. )has been identified as a mountain rock and is largely used as description for God, identifying its interpretation is not easy still, given the fact that Daniel himself did not interpret it to Nebuchadnezzar. However, it is probable that the cryptic mountain might have been understood by Nebuchadnezzar in his pagan perspective,29 otherwise Daniel has to interpret it to him. The fact that its interpretation is not given does not mean that the mountain is not searchable. Although Daniel did not interpret the mountain, nevertheless, he did not leave it without any clue as to its possible referent. There are possible hints that may identify the interpretation of the mountain: the relationship of the definiteness of the mountain with the definiteness of the metals, and the relationship between the stone ( )and the mountain (.) The Mountain In Daniel, there is a close connection between v. 34 and v. 45. When comparing these verses in Table 1, several aspects such as language, sense of idea, and flow of the phrases or statements, establish the components of resemblance of these verses. Both verses made mention of the stone cut out by no human hands and the idea of breaking the metals in pieces. In verse 34, however, the derivative substance where the stone was cut out is not clearly mentioned, while in v. 45, it is precisely stated that the stone was cut out The imagery of the mountain must have been cleared to Nebuchadnezzars mind, because in ANE, there is no clear separation made between the mountain and the world of the divine. See Martin Selman, ,New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (NIDOTTE), ed. Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997) 1:1052. In addition, Foerster notes that the Babylonian literature emphasizes the mountains as place where gods basically made their abode. See Foerster, ros, 475.
29

10

from the mountain without hands. Taking these verses into account, the mountain is fairly the substance of the stone both in v. 34 and v. 45.

Dan 2:34
As you looked a stone was cut out

Dan 2:4530
Just as you saw that a stone was cut out from the mountain without hands and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold

without hands and it struck the image

on its feet of iron and clay and broke them in pieces

Table 1: Parallelism of Dan 2:34 and Dan 2:45

The table does not only illustrates a close relationship between v. 34 and v. 45, but essentially projects a close relationship between the stone and the mountain, as it is said, the stone was cut out ( )from the mountain without hands (v. 45). Here, the resemblance of the stone and the mountain is evident by the use of to cut or to divide.31 In the OT, the literal use of connotes a cutting/dividing of thing of the same substance. For instances, Solomon commanded that the child be divided ( )into two
30

Note that the last sentence of Dan 2:45 is not included in the table.

For the shades of meaning of ,see James E. Smith, ,Theological Workbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 1:58; CHALOT, s. v. ;BDB, v. v. .In the OT, appears 31 times, 15 of which refer to the name Gezer. See Gen 15:17; Lev 16:22; Josh 10:33; 12:12; 16:3, 10; 21:21; Judg 1:29 [2x], 2 Sam 5:25; 1 Kgs 3:25, 26; 9:15, 16, 17; 2 Kgs 6:4; 1 Chro 6:52; 7:28; 14:16; 20:4; 2 Chro 26:21; Est 2:1; Job 22:28; Ps 88:6; 136:13 [2x], Isa 9:19; 53:8; Lam 3:54; Ezek 37:11; Hab 3:17.

31

11

(1 Kgs 3:25, 26), the people came to Jordan and they cut down ( )tress (2 Kgs 6:4), and God divided ( )the Red Sea (Ps 136:13). Considerably, the cutting out ( )of the stone from the mountain in Dan 2:45,32 suggests a cutting of thing of the same substance.33 If this is the case, then likely the stone and the mountain exhibit the same characteristics and identity. To some extent, however, there is difference between the stone and the mountain when one considers the definiteness of these elements. It is only in the sense of definiteness that the line of demarcation between the stone and the mountain would be clearly seen. In the table presented, an observation is made that the mountain ( )is written with an Aramaic definite article ( " the), while the stone ( )is written without a definite article both in v. 34 and v. 45. In this respect, since the mountain is associated with a definite article, it is in determined state;34 thus the mountain ( )is absolutely precise, while the stone ( )is not. Intriguingly, the metals in the great image are all associated with definite article ( )" both in v. 34 and v. 45: the iron ( ,)the bronze In Daniel, appears 6 times, two of which are in hitpeel/itpeel form (2:34, 45), literally translated to cut or divide. The other four occurrences of is in peal masculine plural (2:27; 4:4; 5:7, 11). It is literally translated determiners with reference to those who consult livers (haruspices in Latin). See Holladay, s. v. .Note that the taking out of the livers from the body of the animals needs cutting. In this respect is used. Because the act of act of cutting is more astral in nature, in these verses are then translated astrologers. Micheal A. Grisanti, ,NIDOTTE, 1:850, notes that the meaning of ranges from cutting/dividing, exclusion from a place or thing, to establishing a decree. With these meanings, Dan 2:45 falls to the sense of cutting/dividing. Regarding the definiteness in Aramaic, see Frederick E. Greenspahn, An Introduction to Aramaic, 2nd edition (Atlanta, Georgia: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 25-28.
34 33 32

12

( ,) the clay ( ,)the silver ) ,)and the gold ( 53.) It appears that, the mountain and the metals in the great image agree in the aspect of definiteness. Apparently, in Daniels interpretation of the metallic symbolisms, he consistently associates kingdoms to the cryptic metals which are in definite form; the metals are said to represent earthly kingdoms (vv. 37-43). When Daniel told the interpretation, he seemed to observe a pattern by mentioning the kingdom in indefinite form (exception is v. 37), and the metals in definite form (exception is v. 41). This kind of pattern is also noticeable in vv. 44-45, in which the kingdom of God is indefinite and the symbolism is definite. Here, however, there are two cryptic elemental symbolisms, namely the stone and the mountain, which could stand for the kingdom of God. Of these two elements, for sure only one could precisely represent Gods kingdom, and the other element may be referred to something, plausibly related to the kingdom of God. In the interpretation segment (vv. 36-45), the strong agreement between the kingdom ( )in indefinite form and the metallic/elemental symbolisms in definite form, suggests that, in v. 45, the kingdom (( )kingdom of God) should be associated to the mountain ( )which is definite, rather than to the stone () which is indefinite. This idea is graphically illustrated in Table 2 as far as the indefinite and definite pattern and the definiteness of the metals is concerned.
35

Even the rest of the occurrences of the metals in the context of telling of the dream and its interpretation, all are in definite form by way of the attachment of a definite article ( )to it (see vv. 35, 38, 39, 40, 42). Some occurrences of the metals, however, do not show its direct definiteness when one looks at it superficially on its own form (vv. 32, 41, 43), but when considering its construct form; one would recognize the definiteness of the metals. This means that all the entry of the metals in the symbolic dream, are all in definite form either by way of the attachment of the definite article ( ,)" or by way of construct form.

13

Kingdoms (without ) "

vv. 37-38, the kingdom36 v. 39a, a kingdom v. 39b, a kingdom v. 40, a kingdom v. 41, a divided kingdom vv. 44-45, a kingdom (kingdom of God)

Metals/Elements (with )"

, the gold silver is not stated, but implied ,the bronze , the iron partly gold and partly iron37 a stone38 was cut out of the mountain

Metallic/Elemental Symbolisms in Dan 2:45

a stone, the mountain, the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold

Table 2: The Kingdoms and Metals/Elements

Nonetheless, in Table 2, there is a case in which the kingdom ( )in indefinite form is associated to the element partly clay ( )and partly iron ( )which is also in indefinite form. Does this case provide a ground to associate the kingdom (( )kingdom of God) in indefinite form to the stone ( )which is also in indefinite form? In any case No. The case of the indefiniteness of partly clay ( )and partly iron ( )is different from and the indefiniteness of the stone ( .) It must be noted that the first mention of partly clay and partly iron and the rest are in definite forms (see vv. 33, 34, 35, 42, 45), except in vv. 41, 43. In contrast, the very A possible explanation to account the definiteness of the kingdom ( ) in v. 37 is the precision of the referent of the gold ( ) as indicated by You, O king. you are the head of gold. The referents of the other metals/elements, nevertheless, are not clearly identified. In this sense, writing the kingdom ( )in indefinite form is more appropriate. In vv. 41, 43, the partly clay ( )and partly iron ( )is not written in definite form, but it must be noted that its first mention along with the rest of the mention in the section of vv. 31-45, all are written in definite form by means of a definite article ( )" or by construct form.
38 37 36

The stone is not definite. 14

first mention of the stone ( )is already in indefinite form. In fact, in the segment of the telling of the dream and in the segment of the telling of interpretation, the stone () is both written in indefinite form (v. 34 and 45).39 Hence, there is no way to consider the case of the stone ( )like that of the element partly clay ( )and partly iron ( )and associate kingdom ( )to it, because the stone ( )is inherently indefinite in the context of symbolisms. Where as the partly clay and partly iron is already definite at the outset (vv. 33, 34).40 Because of this, by reason of the definiteness of the metallic/elemental symbolisms which have been identified to stand for kingdoms, it is consistent to associate the kingdom (( )kingdom of God) with the mountain ( )which is definite, rather than to the stone ( )which is indefinite. In Dan 2:45, the mountain In v. 35, however, the stone ( )is definite, but here the definiteness of the stone has nothing to do with the definiteness of the element per se. Note again that the first mention of the stone ( )is indefinite (v. 34). Moreover, in v. 45, an elaboration of v. 34, the stone ( )is also indefinite. These parallel verses (vv. 34, 45) strongly suggest that the stone ( )is inherently indefinite in the presentation of symbolisms. In this respect, the stone ( )which is definite in v. 35 should not be confused. The definite article ( )" attached to only indicates function, anaphoric, pointing back to its referent a stone ( )in v. 34. In other words, the definite article ( )" attached to in v. 34 does not attributes any quality as to the definiteness of the stone, but indicates that is the stone ( )in v. 34. Moreover, in v. 35, the stone ( )became a great mountain ( )after it stuck the image. Here, it is interesting that the mountain ( )that comes from the stone ( )is indefinite. The argument is simple; if the stone ( )in v. 34 is indeed definite in itself, since it became a great mountain ( )after it struck the image, then the mountain that comes from the stone should also be definite? But in this case, the mountain ( )is indefinite. Why such? The answer is simple; in v. 35, since the definite article ( )" attached to does not attribute definiteness, but indicates that is the stone ( )in v. 34, then it suggests that the stone in v. 35 is still indefinite. That is why, in this case, a great mountain ( )that comes from the stone is indefinite, because the stone in v. 35, although definite in from, but still indefinite in sense.
40 39

It is definite by means of definite article ( )" or by construct form.

15

( )then is an appropriate depiction of the kingdom of God. This inference is close the semantic value of the mountain both in Aramaic and Hebrew, and respectively, which is closely associated to God,41 than related to God.42 In this sense, if the mountain ( )stands precisely for the kingdom of God, then the stone ( )which was cut out from the mountain ( )without hands along with its activity of striking and breaking the image in pieces may refer only to a specific event in time, when God breaks the earthly kingdoms thereby to establish His kingdom. However, after the stone struck and crushed the great image in pieces, the stone became a great mountain and filled the whole earth (34). How is this mountain different from the mountain where the stone was cut out with no hands (v. 45)? The Stone and ehtMountain in Dan 2:35, 45 In the telling of the dream and its interpretation, the stone ( )is said to have been cut out from the mountain ( )without hands, and it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold (v. 45). Yet, after the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold, were broken in pieces and became like chaff, the stone ( )that struck the image became a great mountain ( 34)and filled the whole earth (v. 35). This implies that the stone ( )that was cut out from the mountain () Note that of the 73 occurrences of in the OT, 34 of which are used as descriptions for God. See page 7, note 16. The term appears 280 times both in Hebrew (272) and Aramaic (2x in Ezra, 6x in Daniel) (based on BibleWorks 8). Of all of these occurrences, only four of these occurrences carry a possible connotation of the Messiah (Ps 118:22; Isa 8:4; 28:16; Zech 4:7), one occurrence with a clear description for God (Gen 49:24). For the issue of the definiteness of the stone ( )and the indefiniteness of the mountain ( ,)see page 15, note 39. 16
43 42 41

became a mountain ( )too, but greater than the mountain where the stone was derived. Such idea is better perceive in the diagram below.

The Mountain ()

A Stone ()

A Great Mountain ()

The diagram shows mountain-stone-mountain scheme which highlights three significant points. First, the mountain where the stone was cut out without hands (v. 45) is no different from a great mountain that comes from the stone (v. 35). In the strictest sense, both the stone (vv. 45, 35) and a great mountain (v. 35) have derived their substance from the mountain (v. 45; cf. v. 34). Second, the sameness of the mountain and a great mountain further confirms the symbolism for the kingdom of God. The great mountain filling the whole earth is the culminating scene of the dream. Note that Dan 2 is apocalyptic in nature, presenting the reign of the earthly kingdoms beginning from the time of Daniel climaxing to the kingdom of God being established on earth (vv. 36-45).44 Third, the side by side placement of the mountain with the stone at the center emphasizes the significance of the cutting out45 of the stone from the mountain without hands along with its breaking activity of the great image into pieces. It is only when the stone was cut out from the mountain and broke the metallic image in pieces that the Douglas Bennett, The Stone Kingdom of Daniel 2, Symposium on Daniel, ed. Frank B. Holbrook, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 2 (Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1986), 346. This is comparable to Dan 8:25, he shall be broken, but by no human hand. It suggests of an activity independent from mans involvement.
45 44

17

stone will eventually become a great mountain. In other words, the kingdom of God can only be set up and be established on earth when an appointed divinely event in time is effected to bring an end of the earthly kingdoms (compare Dan 2:35, 44; 7:27). That is only then the realm and the reign of God on earth is established. Daniel said that this kingdom is indestructible and stands forever (2:44).

Theological Implications The cryptic mountain ( )in Dan 2:45 is used as description for the kingdom ( 64)of God. When analyzing the dream of Nebuchadnezzar with its interpretation (vv. 31-45), it suggests that that the emphasis has not been focused on the great metallic image, but on the mountain where the stone that broke the image in pieces was cut out. With this, in Dan 2, the kingdom of God is given with particular significance. It is evident that Gods kingdom is presented with concrete descriptions: it shall never be destroyed, it shall not be left to another people, it shall break in pieces the earthly kingdoms and bring them bring to an end, and it shall stand forever (v. 44). Apparently, the concrete descriptions of Gods kingdom, in another sense, made a contrast to the earthly kingdoms which are transitory (vv. 37-43). In presenting that Gods kingdom will bring an end to the earthly kingdoms, God must have been appealing to Nebuchadnezzar in this manner, to make him realize that everything that is earths is bound to be broken and be devoted to destruction (vv. 35, 45), unless linked to God.47 By In Daniel alone, the term kingdom appears 53 times in eight different forms (based on BibleWorks 8). Of all of these occurrences, approximately 15 times are related to God. See e.g., Dan 2:37, 44 [3x]; 3:33; 4:14, 22, 26, 29, 31, 6:27; 7:14, 18, 22, 27 (2x).
47 46

Class handouts for OTST 671 Exegesis of the Book of Daniel, 32. 18

describing that Gods kingdom will not be destroyed and that it shall stand forever, God must have been opening to Nebuchadnezzar the door of opportunity to identify himself with the God of the kingdom who perpetuates life. In the larger context of Daniel, the perpetuation of life along with prosperity is closely associated with recognition that the God of heaven rules over the kingdoms of men (4:25-27; 34-37). The recognition of Gods rule, however, entails turning away from sin (repentance) and requires the practice of righteousness and showing of mercy to the oppressed (vv. 26, 27). Such is the condition of the perpetuation of life, to identify oneself with the God of heaven by recognizing that He rules above all earthly powers. The God of heaven is able to afford of life with men because He Himself is life. As Daniel said, His kingdom is everlasting, His dominion has no end, and He lives from generation to generation (vv. 3, 34-35). He is as an everlasting rock (( )Isa 26:4). When the appointed time in Gods time table comes, as indicated by the stone cut out from the mountain without hands and struck and broke the metallic image in pieces (vv. 35, 45), that is when the God of heaven will end the history of this world and subsequently establish His realm and reign on earth. Dwelling within His kingdom are His saints who possess His kingdom and dominion (7:18, 22, 27). This means that Gods kingdom will be theirs and they will exercise their rule in that kingdom, however, shepherd by the rule of the Son of Man (7:14).

Summary and Conclusion This study has examined the mountain ( )in Dan 2:45 in order to determine its possible referent. The search investigated the mountain in its semantic value, usage, and how it is understood in Aramaic ( ,)in Hebrew ( ,)and in ANE. Then the linguistics 19

analysis of the mountain is drawn to ascertain what the mountain really stands for in Dan 2:45. The words study has revealed that the mountain both in Aramaic and Hebrew ( and respectively) projects that the mountain in Dan 2:45 is a rocky mountain or a mountain rock. This imagery has gained several affirming passages in the OT that the mountain rock (Aram. and Heb. )is repeatedly used as description for God, than as epithet for God. In ANE, the pagans associate mountains with the gods and consider mountains as the abiding place of the gods. More importantly, the linguistics analysis has determined that the kingdom of God should be associated to the mountain ( ,)rather than to the stone ( .)In Daniels interpretation (vv. 37-45), he consistently associates kingdom () (indefinite) to the metallic/elemental symbolisms (definite). Because of this, it is consistent to associate the kingdom (( )kingdom of God) with the mountain ( )which is definite, rather than to the stone ( )which is indefinite. In this sense, the mountain in Dan 2:45 is the precise depiction of the kingdom of God. Then the stone which was cut out from the mountain without hands with its activity of striking and breaking of the image into pieces likely refer to a specific event in time, when God breaks the earthly kingdoms thereby to establish His kingdom. In answer to the main questions of this paper, I conclude that the mountain is the kingdom of God, and that there is no difference between the mountain in Dan 2:45 and Dan 2:35. This means that both of the mountain in Dan 2:45 and Dan 2:35 stands for Gods kingdom. Daniel assures that this kingdom shall never be destroyed, it shall not be left to another people, it shall break in pieces the earthly kingdoms and bring them bring to an end, and it shall stand forever (Dan 2:45).

20

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by J. B. Pritchard. Princeton, 1969. Bennett, Douglas. The Stone Kingdom of Daniel 2. Symposium on Daniel. Edited by. Frank B. Holbrook. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series. Vol. 2. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1986. BibleWorks 8. Norfolk, VA: BibleWorks, 2009. Brown, F., S. Driver, and C. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996. S. v. , , and . Class handouts for OTST 671 Exegesis of the Book of Daniel. Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies, Silang, Cavite, Philippines. 1st semester 2011. Dahood, M. Ras Shamra Parallels: The Texts from Ugarit on the Hebrew. Edited by L. R. Fisher et. al. Analecta Orietalia. Rome, 1972. Daniel, Ernest Lucas. Apollos Old Testament Commentary. Vol. 20. Edited by David W. Baker and Gordon J. Wenham. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002. Davidson, Benjamin. The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979. S. v. . Farby, Bon H. .Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978. Foerster, W. ros. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-1976. Greenspahn, Frederick E. An Introduction to Aramaic. 2nd Edition. Atlanta, Georgia: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Grisanti, Micheal A. .New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by Willem A. VanGemeren. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997. Hill, Andrew E. ,New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by Willem A. VanGemeren. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997.

21

Holladay, William L. ed. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988. S. v. , ,and . Lee, Gary A. Hill. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982. Lipinski, Louvin. .Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978. Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel, JSOT 198, eds. David J. A. Clines and Philip R. Davies. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1995. Miller, Stephen R. Daniel. The New American Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of the Holy Scriptures. Vol. 14. Proverbs to Song of Songs. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994. Murphy, Frederick J. Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature. The New Interpreters Bible. Vol. 7. Edited by Leander E. Keck. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1996. Selman, Martin. .New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by Willem A. VanGemeren. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997. Shea, William H. Daniel: A Readers Guide. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2005. Smith, James E. .Theological Workbook of the Old Testament. Edited by R. Laird Harris. Chicago: Moody Press, 1980. Stefanovic, Zdravko. The Aramaic of Daniel in the Light of Old Aramaic. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 129. Editeb by David J. A. Clines and Philip R. Davies. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1992. Strong, James. The New Strongs Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2010. S. v. and . The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament and Apocrypha. London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1981.

22