Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.

Thus thou sawest, till a stone was cut out of a mountain without hands: and it struck the statue upon the feet thereof that were of iron and of clay, and broke them in pieces.

Thou sawest till a stone was cut out without hands; and it smote the image upon its feet of iron and clay, and broke them to pieces.

Thou wast looking till that a stone hath been cut out without hands, and it hath smitten the image on its feet, that are of iron and of clay, and it hath broken them small;

While you were looking at it, a stone was cut out, but not by hands, and it gave the image a blow on its feet, which were of iron and earth, and they were broken in bits.

Videbas, quousque excisus fuit lapis, qui non ex manibus, [149] et percussit imaginem ad pedes qui erant ex ferro et testa, et contrivit eos.

Thou sawest - Chaldee, "Thou wast seeing;" that is, thou didst continue to behold, implying that the vision was of somewhat long continuance. It did not appear and then suddenly vanish, but it remained so long that he had an opportunity of careful observation.
Till that a stone was cut out without hands - That is, from a mountain or hill, Daniel 2:45. This idea is expressed in the Latin and the Greek version. The vision appears to have been that of a colossal image "standing on a plain" in the vicinity of a mountain, standing firm, until, by some unseen agency, and in an unaccountable manner, a stone became detached from the mountain, and was made to impinge against it. The margin here is, "which was not in his hands." The more correct rendering of the Chaldee, however, is that in the text, literally, "a stone was cut out which was not by hands" - בידין bı̂ydayı̂n: or perhaps still more accurately, "a stone was cut out which was not in hands," so that the fact that it was not in or by "hands" refers rather to its not being projected by hands than to the manner of its being detached from the mountain. The essential idea is, that the agency of hands did not appear at all in the case. The stone seemed to be self-moved. It became detached from the mountain, and, as if instinct with life, struck the image and demolished it. The word rendered "stone" ( אבן 'eben) determines nothing as to the "size" of the stone, but the whole statement would seem to imply that it was not of large dimensions. It struck upon "the feet" of the image, and it "became" itself a great mountain Daniel 2:35 - all which would seem to imply that it was at first not large. What increased the astonishment of the monarch was, that a stone of such dimensions should have been adequate to overthrow so gigantic a statue, and to grind it to powder. The points on which it was clearly intended to fix the attention of the monarch, and which made the vision so significant and remarkable, were these:
(a) the colossal size and firmness of the image;
(b) the fact that a stone, not of large size, should be seen to be selfdetached from the mountain, and to move against the image;
(c) the fact that it should completely demolish and pulverize the colossal figure; and
(d) the fact that then this stone of inconsiderable size should be itself mysteriously augmented until it filled the world.
It should be added, that the vision appears not to have been that of a stone detached from the side of a hill, and rolling down the mountain by the force of gravitation, but that of a stone detached, and then moving off toward the image as if it had been thrown from a hand, though the hand was unseen. This would very strikingly and appropriately express the idea of something, apparently small in its origin, that was impelled by a cause that was unseen, and that bore with mighty force upon an object of colossal magnitude, by an agency that could not be explained by the causes that usually operate. For the application and pertinency of this, see the notes at Daniel 2:44-45.
Which smote the image upon his feet - The word here used (מחא mechâ') means, to "strike," to "smite," without reference to the question whether it is a single blow, or whether the blow is often repeated. The Hebrew word (מחא mâchâ') is uniformly used as refering to "the clapping of the hands;" that is, smiting them together, Psalm 98:8; Isaiah 55:12; Ezekiel 25:6. The Chaldee word is used only here and in Daniel 2:35, referring to the smiting of the image, and in Daniel 4:35 (32), where it is rendered "stay" - "none can stay his hand." The connection here, and the whole statement, would seem to demand the sense of a continued or prolonged smiting, or of repeated blows, rather than a single concussion. The great image was not only thrown down, but there was a subsequent process of "comminution," independent of what would have been produced by the fall. A fall would only have broken it into large blocks or fragments; but this continued smiting reduced it to powder. This would imply, therefore, not only a single shock, or violent blow, but some cause continuing to operate until what had been overthrown was effectually destroyed, like a vast image reduced to impalpable powder. The "first concussion" on the feet made it certain that the colossal frame would fall; but there was a longer process necessary before the whole effect should be accomplished. Compare the notes at Daniel 2:44-45.
And brake them to pieces - In Daniel 2:35, the idea is, "they became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors." The meaning is not that the image was broken to "fragments," but that it was "beaten fine" - reduced to powder - so that it might be scattered by the wind. This is the sense of the Chaldee word (דקק deqaq), and of the Hebrew word also (דקק dâqaq). See Exodus 32:20 : "And he took the calf which they had made, and burned it in the fire, and ground it to powder." Deuteronomy 9:21 : "and I took your sin, the calf which ye had made, and burnt it with fire, and stamped it, and ground it very small, even until it was as small as dust." Isaiah 41:15 : "thou shalt thresh the mountains and "beat them small," and shalt make the hills as chaff." 2-Kings 23:15 : "he burnt the high place, and "stamped" it "small" to powder." 2-Chronicles 34:4 : "and they brake down the altars, etc., and "made dust" of them, and strewed it upon the graves of them that had sacrificed unto them." Compare Exodus 30:36; 2-Chronicles 34:7; 2-Kings 23:6. From these passages it is clear that the general meaning of the word is that of reducing anything to fine dust or powder, so that it may be easily blown about by the wind.

A stone was cut out - The fifth monarchy; the spiritual kingdom of the Lord Jesus, which is to last for ever, and diffuse itself over the whole earth.

Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands,.... Or, "wast seeing" (e); the king continued looking upon the image that stood before him, as he thought, as long as he could see it, till he saw a "stone": an emblem of the Messiah, as it often is in Scripture, Genesis 49:24, because of his strength, firmness, and duration; and so it is interpreted here by many Jewish writers, ancient and modern, as well as by Christians; and also of his kingdom, or of him in his kingly office; see Daniel 2:44. In an ancient book (f) of theirs, written by R. Simeon Ben Jochai, the author interprets this stone, cut out of the mountain without hands, to be the same with him who in Genesis 49:24, is called the Shepherd and Stone of Israel; as it is by Saadiah Gaon, a later writer; and in another of their writings (g), reckoned by them very ancient, it is said, that the ninth king (for they speak of ten) shall be the King Messiah, who shall reign from one end of the world to the other, according to that passage, "the stone which smote the image", &c. Daniel 2:35 and in one of their ancient Midrashes (h), or expositions, it is interpreted of the King Messiah: and so R. Abraham Seba (i), on those words, "from thence is the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel", Genesis 49:24; observes, the King Messiah does not come but by the worthiness of Jacob, as it is said, "thou sawest, till that stone cut out without hands, because of Jacob". This is said to be "cut out without hands"; that is, the hands of men, as Saadiah and Jacchiades explain it; not cut out by workmen, as stones usually are out of quarries; but was taken out by an unseen hand, and by invisible power, even purely divine: this may point at the wondrous incarnation of Christ, who was made of a woman, of a virgin, without the help of a man, by the power of God; see Hebrews 8:2, and at his kingdom, which was like a single stone at first, very small, and was cut out and separated from the world, and set up and maintained, not by human, but divine power, and being of a spiritual nature, 2-Corinthians 5:1,
which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces; this seems to represent this image as in a plain, when, from a mountain hanging over it, a stone is taken by an invisible hand, and rolled upon it; which falling on its feet, breaks them to pieces, and in course the whole statue falls, and is broken to shivers; this respects what is yet to be done in the latter day, when Christ will take to himself his great power, and reign, and subdue, and destroy the ten kings or kingdoms that are given to antichrist, and him himself, and the remainder of the several monarchies, and in which they will all end.
(e) "videns eras", Montanus, Michaelis. (f) Zohar in Genesis. fol. 86. 2. (g) Pirke Eliezer, c. 11. fol. 12. 2. (h) Bemidbar Rabba, sect. 13. fol. 209. 4. (i) Tzeror Hammor, fol. 63. 2.

stone--Messiah and His kingdom (Genesis 49:24; Psalm 118:22; Isaiah 28:16). In its relations to Israel, it is a "stone of stumbling" (Isaiah 8:14; Acts 4:11; 1-Peter 2:7-8) on which both houses of Israel are broken, not destroyed (Matthew 21:32). In its relation to the Church, the same stone which destroys the image is the foundation of the Church (Ephesians 2:20). In its relation to the Gentile world power, the stone is its destroyer (Daniel 2:35, Daniel 2:44; compare Zac 12:3). Christ saith (Matthew 21:44, referring to Isaiah 8:14-15), "Whosoever shall fall on this stone (that is, stumble, and be offended, at Him, as the Jews were, from whom, therefore, He says, 'The kingdom shall be taken') shall be broken; but (referring to Daniel 2:34-35) on whomsoever it shall fall (referring to the world power which had been the instrument of breaking the Jews), it will (not merely break, but) grind him to powder" (1-Corinthians 15:24). The falling of the stone of the feet of the image cannot refer to Christ at His first advent, for the fourth kingdom was not then as yet divided--no toes were in existence (see on Daniel 2:44).
cut out--namely, from "the mountain" (Daniel 2:45); namely, Mount Zion (Isaiah 2:2), and antitypically, the heavenly mount of the Father's glory, from whom Christ came.
without hands--explained in Daniel 2:44, "The God of heaven shall set up a kingdom," as contrasted with the image which was made with hands of man. Messiah not created by human agency, but conceived by the Holy Ghost (Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:35; compare Zac 4:6; Mark 14:58; Hebrews 9:11, Hebrews 9:24). So "not made with hands," that is, heavenly, 2-Corinthians 5:1; spiritual, Colossians 2:11. The world kingdoms were reared by human ambition: but this is the "kingdom of heaven"; "not of this world" (John 18:36). As the fourth kingdom, or Rome, was represented in a twofold state, first strong, with legs of iron, then weak, with toes part of iron, part of clay; so this fifth kingdom, that of Christ, is seen conversely, first insignificant as a "stone," then as a "mountain" filling the whole earth. The ten toes are the ten lesser kingdoms into which the Roman kingdom was finally to be divided; this tenfold division here hinted at is not specified in detail till the seventh chapter. The fourth empire originally was bounded in Europe pretty nearly by the line of the Rhine and Danube; in Asia by the Euphrates. In Africa it possessed Egypt and the north coasts; South Britain and Dacia were afterwards added but were ultimately resigned. The ten kingdoms do not arise until a deterioration (by mixing clay with the iron) has taken place; they are in existence when Christ comes in glory, and then are broken in pieces. The ten have been sought for in the invading hosts of the fifth and sixth century. But though many provinces were then severed from Rome as independent kingdoms, the dignity of emperor still continued, and the imperial power was exercised over Rome itself for two centuries. So the tenfold divisions cannot be looked for before A.D. 731. But the East is not to be excluded, five toes being on each foot. Thus no point of time before the overthrow of the empire at the taking of Constantinople by the Turks (A.D. 1453) can be assigned for the division. It seems, therefore, that the definite ten will be the ultimate development of the Roman empire just before the rise of Antichrist, who shall overthrow three of the kings, and, after three and a half years, he himself be overthrown by Christ in person. Some of the ten kingdoms will, doubtless, be the same as some past and present divisions of the old Roman empire, which accounts for the continuity of the connection between the toes and legs, a gap of centuries not being interposed, as is objected by opponents of the futurist theory. The lists of the ten made by the latter differ from one another; and they are set aside by the fact that they include countries which were never Roman, and exclude one whole section of the empire, namely, the East [TREGELLES].
upon his feet--the last state of the Roman empire. Not "upon his legs." Compare "in the days of these kings" (see on Daniel 2:44).