The vision (chazon) described in Daniel 8 of the ram and the goat with a broken horn "in place of which four notable ones came up toward the four winds of heaven" forms the contextual framework, discussed in depth by Shea and Hasel, of Dn. 8:9-14. The origin of the "horn from littleness" which comes out of the four winds of heaven has been clarified previously. There is general agreement among Adventist scholars that the horn from littleness in verse 9 which "became very great" and "cast down some of the host" in verse 10 represents Rome in its two phases, both pagan and papal Rome.
5.1 Pagan/Papal Rome Identification
Although there is agreement that both pagan and papal Rome are represented in 8:9-12, there is significant disagreement between Hasel and Shea in distinguishing papal and pagan activity in the individual verses. For example, Hasel argues that a "horizontal activity" of pagan Rome is represented by verses 9 & 10 whereas the vertical activity of papal Rome is revealed in verses 11 & 12. Shea, on the other hand, argues for a horizontal movement of pagan imperial Rome in verse 9 but a vertical movement of papal Rome against the host of heaven in verse 10. Shea suggests that an attack of a religious character is portrayed in vs. 10 similar to that in Dn. 7: 21-22, 25, 27 by papal Rome against the saints of the Most High.
5.1.1 Gender Oscillations in Dn. 8:9-12
It is readily apparent from the Hebrew Masoretic text that the gender of the verbal subjects and pronouns alternate from feminine to masculine to feminine in verses 10-12 respectively. Hasel argues that the gender change from feminine in 10 to masculine in verse 11 denotes a change in activity from pagan to papal Rome; he suggests further that verses 9 and 10 are of a pagan nature and verses 11 and 12 of a papal nature. His reasoning by gender identification fails to explain the reversion to the feminine gender in verse 12 ("it cast truth to the ground") which is a definitive reference to papal Rome which should be, by his reasoning, in the masculine gender. Hasel dismisses this anomaly simply by suggesting the feminine (it) refers to another aspect of the horn's (feminine) activity alluded to in verse 9.
We agree with Hasel in principle that the gender alternation in Dn. 8:9-12 has significant implications regarding the identification of the specific phase of the horn's activity. But a more comprehensive and self-consistent approach to gender oscillations is adopted in this exegesis of Daniel 8:9-14.
5.1.2 Gender Identification in Verse 9
The primary verb in verse 9 is yatza (to come out) in a Qal perfect, masculine form. However, the nearest subject noun, "a horn of littleness" is feminine which grammatically precludes a subject-verbal linkage. Hasel attempts to explain the anomaly based on Hebrew syntax of a verb preceding as animal subject requiring a masculine form. Although this may be a viable solution based on Hebrew syntax, it is suggested that a more substantive and realistic solution revolves around Daniel's intentional use of Hebrew syntax to a create a distinction by gender between the 2 phases of the horn from littleness and their independent and unique activities delineated in verses 9-12. In verse 9 the evident solution to the gender anomaly is that Daniel intended the masculine verbal subject (he came out) to be accompanied by an explanatory appositional phrase, "a horn from littleness". Thus verse 9 reads; "out of one of them he came, a horn from littleness, which became great toward the south..."). The net effect is that the horizontal activity of the horn described by Shea earlier in verse 9 is correlated with the masculine gender which in turn corresponds to pagan Rome's expansion of power. Daniel's intentional use of Hebrew syntax to distinguish between the two phases of the horn by means of gender distinction will become evident as the discussion on gender in verses 10-11 proceeds.
5.1.3 Gender Identification in Verse 10
In verse 10, the subjects are all verbal in nature and each one is feminine in form. Although it can be argued that feminine verbal subjects refer to the horn from littleness (inherently feminine), this logic would also require the verbal forms of verse 11 to be feminine (it exalts itself); but the verbal form is masculine (he exalts himself). Hence it is suggested that Daniel intended a gender change from masculine in verse 9 to feminine in verse 10 to indicate a distinct phase change in activity of the horn. The papal aspect of the activity in verse 10 is readily apparent. According to Shea the focus of the activity in verse 10 has a vertical dimension clearly exhibiting a religious character with the horn attacking the host and stars of heaven, symbolically the people of God. This religious persecution is described in Dn. 7:21 & 25 which is explicitly related to the papal phase of Rome according to all historicist expositors.
5.1.4 Gender Identification in Verse 11
The dramatic shift in gender to masculine in verse 11 (he exalted himself) reflects a change in phases of the two entities which the metaphor symbol of the horn represents as suggested by Hasel. Whereas Hasel argues that the masculine gender in verse 11 indicates a shift to papal Rome from pagan Rome in verse 10, it is suggested the change to masculine in v. 11 represents a renewed emphasis on the pagan phase of Rome contrasted with papal phase in verse 10.
The one who magnified himself even to the Prince of the host is identified in Acts 4:26-28 by the apostle Peter: "The kings of the earth---gathered against the Lord and His Christ. For truly Your holy Servant Jesus whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined to be done".
Acts 4:26-28 is an allusion to Ps. 2:1 in which the "kings of the earth have set themselves and the rulers have met together against Jehovah and His Anointed". Further evidence that the one exalting himself in Dn. 8:11 is pagan Rome is found in 8:25 where "he (a king) stands up against the Prince of princes" which bears a striking resemblance to Ps. 2:1. Contrary to most Adventist expositors, it is suggested that the kingly power of 8:23-25 is an explicit description of pagan Rome throughout, although papal Rome may be implicit. Three reasons for this proposition are set forth: l) All the verbal subjects and adjectival pronouns are masculine corresponding with the masculine designations of verse 9 and 11 which it was suggested referred to pagan Rome; 2) The strong linguistic similarity of Dn. 8:25d ("also against the Prince of princes he shall stand") with Ps. 2:1 and also the internal relationship of Dn. 8:11 with 8:25d , and finally 3) the one (a king) who "shall be broken without hand" in 8:25e is linguistically similar to the Aramaic of Dn. 2:45 ("a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands and broke in pieces the iron..."). The reference in 2:45 refers to pagan, political powers and the linguistic similarity to the Hebrew of 8:25 lends credibility to the suggestion of pagan, kingly power throughout 8:23-25. For example, "he shall destroy the holy people" in 8:25 alludes to Rome's action of destroying the city and the sanctuary in Dn. 9:26 and 11:22. The deceitful tactics of this kingly power are alluded to in 8:25 and its pagan, deceitful characteristics are revealed in 11:23, a clear reference to pagan Rome.
Furthermore, the historical record substantiates pagan Rome's consistent self exaltation to the Prince of the host. Emperor Octavian's (31 BC-AD 14) adoptive father Caesar, at the Senate's decree, was elevated to a place among the deities. "Thereafter Octavian called himself son of the Caesar, imperator Caesar divi filius." Octavius added to his name the one of "Augustus" emphasizing the unique dignity of his position. Until that time this designation (meaning "the exalting one"; cf. Dn. 8:11, "he exalted himself") had been employed only as a surname of deities conveying the impression that his position of power was of incomparable loftiness. Herod the Great, a native vassal ruler of Palestine under the Romans, exalted to the Prince of the host by slaughtering the infants in Bethlehem seeking to destroy the Christ (Mt. 2:3-16).
Emperor Caligula (AD 27-41) exhibited exaggerated striving for godlike exaltation and demanded worship of himself and ordered his statue placed in the temple at Jerusalem which was thwarted by his death in AD 41. Emperor Nero (AD 54-68), along with Caligula and Domitian, claimed deity for himself while still alive and each one failed to receive the honor at death which was normally the customary practice of the emperor cult started by the Roman Senate of deifying their deceased emperors who had served well. Emperor Domitian (AD 81-96) emphasized his unlimited power as ruler and sought to exhibit the sanctity of his person publicly and liked to be greeted by the cry: "Hail to the lord and his consort!" The biblical and historical records are clear and confirm that the one exalting himself to the Prince of the host is characterized by pagan Rome, the precursor to papal Rome who inherited the same characteristics.
5.1.5 Gender Identification in Verse 12
Further evidence that pagan Rome is represented by the masculine gender in verse 11 is the very fact that the gender reverts back to feminine verbal forms representing papal Rome in verse 12. Verse 12 in its entirety is an unmistakable allusion to the action of papal Rome opposing the "daily" in which it cast truth to the ground, it worked, and it prospered (all feminine verbal subjects in Hebrew). Exegesis of verse 12 will be developed in a later section.
5.1.6 Self-Consistent Gender Summary
Further evidence that pagan Rome is represented by the masculine gender in verse 11 is the very fact that the gender reverts back to feminine verbal forms representing papal Rome in verse 12. Verse 12 in its entirety is an unmistakable allusion to the action of papal Rome opposing the "daily" in which it cast truth to the ground, it worked, and it prospered (all feminine verbal subjects in Hebrew). Exegesis of verse 12 will be developed in a later section.
Shea has suggested that the gender oscillations in verses 9-12 are due to Hebrew syntax which is unique to Daniel. Since this effect of syntax (see preceding footnote) on determining the gender of verbs finds no precedent in other portions of the book of Daniel or the OT, it seems more reasonable to conclude that Daniel's intentional use of unique syntax in chapter 8 is to create a distinction by gender between the two phases of the horn delineated in verses 9-12.
The net effect of the gender oscillations from masculine to feminine to masculine and to feminine in verses 9-12 reveals a thematic parallelism of gender with the pattern A:B::A':B'. Daniel emphasizes the two-phase aspect of Rome by two distinct parallel and repetitive cycles (masculine:feminine) in verses 9 & 10 and again in 11 & 12. The thematic parallelism of gender in verses 9-12 with the A:B::A':B' pattern is summarized below in the following chart. Confirmation of the significance of the pagan/papal identification by gender distinction will be established from evidence derived from the counterfeit cultic language and symbols of Daniel 8 which will be presented in Sections 6.0 & 7.0.
Thematic Parallelism of Gender
A:B::A':B'
Verse Gender Verb/Pronoun Horn's Phase
A 9 (Masculine) He came (yatza) Pagan
B 10 (Feminine) It Became great (tigdal) Papal
A' 11 Masculine
a) He exalted (gadal) Pagan
b) From him (mimmennu)
B' 12 Feminine
a) It cast down (shalak) Papal
b) It worked ('asah)
c) It prospered (tzalehach)
5.2 Verse 11 and the Daily
A foundation has been laid for the identification of Rome in its two phases in Dn. 8:9-12 by demonstrating the earthly expansion of pagan Rome in verse 9 and the religious attack of papal Rome in verse 10 on the hosts of heaven. Attention will now be focused on 8:11. The literal translation of the first clause in verse 11a reads, "even unto the Prince of the host he exalted himself". Evidence was previously presented by context and gender identification that the one exalting himself was pagan Rome. However, the pivotal issue concerning the interpretation of the "daily" is a determination of "from whom" the "daily" is removed or lifted up in the second clause (verse 11b) which literally reads, "and from him the daily was lifted up". Thus, the pivotal issue of the exegesis revolves around the identification of the antecedent of "from him".
5.2.1 The Antecedent of "From Him" (mimmennu)
Two choices are possible for the antecedent: 1) the Prince of the host or 2) the one exalting himself. Upon this choice, the "daily" will be associated either with the Prince of the host or the pagan phase of the horn from littleness. Hasel dedicates three short sentences in his 84 page exegesis to this problem. He relies on "grammatical nearness" supported by the Greek Septuagint, the Theodotian and the Latin Vulgate for his decision that the antecedent of "from him" is the Prince of the host. However, relying solely on the Hebrew Masoretic text, rather than a secondary Greek translation, and strictly using the basis of "grammatical nearness", the first clause in verse 11a concludes with "he exalted himself" (higdil) and the second clause in verse 11b begins with "from him" (mimmennu). The translation of mimmennu as "from him" in contrast to "by him" is confirmed by the cultic language parallels (see Section 7.0) in Leviticus where both rum and mimmennu are used in conjunction with one another. It is immediately evident on the basis of grammatical nearness that the antecedent of "from him" is the one exalting himself or pagan Rome. As Hasel points out in a footnote, syntactically the first two clauses in verse 11 are inverted verbal clauses, meaning the object precedes the verb which contains the subject, contrary to normal word order. It is suggested that Daniel inverted the normal Hebrew syntax of these two clauses for the specific purpose of making an unmistakable connection of the antecedent (he exalted himself) associated with the phrase, "from him", by placing them adjacent to one another ("...he exalted himself, and from him..."). An internal reflection of the type A:B::B':C results from this inverted syntax with the end of verse 11a reflecting the identification of the first word (prepositional phrase: "from him") in verse 11b.
This is illustrated in the following chart.
Internal Reflection of Daniel 8:11 A:B::B':C
A = Even unto the prince of the host Verse 11a
B = He exalted himself Verse 11a
B'= And From him Verse 11b
C = The daily was lifted up Verse 11b
This internal reflection of the Hebrew syntax supports the contention that the "daily" is lifted up "from" the one exalting himself and not "from" the Prince of the host. This is in addition to the fact that the thrust of emphasis of 8:9-13 is on the horn from littleness and not on the Prince of the host. Additional lines of evidence are presented which lead to the conclusion that the "daily" is intimately associated with the horn from littleness and not the Prince of the host. The evidence will focus on the syntactical and contextual interpretation of the "daily". Furthermore, conclusive evidence that the antecedent of mimmennu represents the horn from littleness is derived from the cultic language parallels of Daniel 8 with Leviticus which will be examined in depth in the later Section on Cultic Language.
5.2.2 The Daily
In this section the distinction between rum (lift up) used in Daniel 8:11 and sur (turn aside, remove or take away) used 11:31 and 12:11 in connection with "the daily" will be examined. A preliminary identification of "the daily" will be suggested and the linkage of tamid with paganism in the OT will examined.
5.2.2.1 RUM: take away or lift up
The Hebrew verbal form huraym (hophal form) derives from the Hebrew root rum meaning exalt, raise up, offer, lift up, pick up, take up, serve, elevate, extol. Examination of Holladay's Hebrew lexicon reveals that all forms of the verb have this general "uplifting" sense of meaning. In every instance where the Hebrew root rum is used in Daniel it is translated by its customary meaning of lift up or exalt. This applies to the Aramaic sections of Daniel (5:19, 20, 23) and the Hebrew sections of Daniel (11:12, 36; 12:7). Compared with these occurrences, Shea acknowledges that the use he proposes for rum in 8:11 ("take away") appears to be exceptional. Shea then proceeds to argue that the "extended" meaning in Dn. 8:11 is based on the use of rum in the first seven chapters of Leviticus describing the sacrificial services (Lev. 2:9; 4:8, 10, 19; 6:10, 15). He then suggests that out of the approximately 200 occurrences of rum in the Hebrew text, where the meaning is lift up, that the 6 occurrences in Lev. 1-7 should be translated in a uniquely equivalent manner with the Hebrew root sur which has the primary root meaning of "to turn aside" or "to go away;" other meanings include "to take away", "remove" or "depart" in its approximately 300 uses in the Masoretic text including those in the first seven chapters of Leviticus (1:16; 3:4, 9, 10, 15; 4:9, 31, 35; 7:4). Shea states that rum and sur are not synonyms, but claims that there is unique overlap between them in the special sacrificial altar applications of Lev. 1-7 approved of God. In summary, Shea argues for the specialized use of an extended meaning of rum in Dn. 8:11 based on its "unique" use in 6 occurrences in Lev. 1-7.
The cognitive quality of rum
It will demonstrated that the distinct cognitive quality of rum (to lift up) and sur (turn aside, take away, remove) are maintained in both Lev. 1-7 and Dn. 8:11; 11:31 & 12:11. The distinctive root meanings of rum and sur are contrasted in Lev. 4:8, 9 & 10 where rum, sur and rum are used respectively. If the meaning of rum and sur were synonyms in these consecutive verses, it would make no sense to use two different verbs. Clearly the author intended a distinct and different activity in verses 8 & 10 where rum is used compared to verse 9 where sur is used. In verses 8 & 10 the priest offers up the fat or lifts up the fat from the sin offering to burn it on the altar of burnt offering. In verse 9, the priest specifically removes or turns aside the fold on the liver beside the kidneys. The literal translation is rendered: "And he shall lift up from it all the fat of the bullock of the sin offering, the fat which (is/was) covering over the inward parts (verse 8), and the two kidneys and the fat which (is/was) on them, which (is/was) beside the flanks and he shall remove (turn aside) the fold on the liver beside the kidneys (verse 9). As it is lifted up from the sacrifice of the peace offerings of the bullock, the priest also shall burn them as incense on the altar of burnt offering" (verse 10).
Careful examination of every use of rum and sur in Lev. 1-7 reveals two distinct and consecutive actions. First, the fat is removed (turned aside) or separated (sur) from the inward parts and second, the separated fat is lifted up by the priest from the sacrificial offering and burned on the altar. It is especially noteworthy that in the case of food (cereal) offerings, there is no fat to remove (turn aside) or separate (sur) and without exception the root verb rum is used where the priest lifts up from the food offering, its memorial offering, and burns it as incense on the altar (see Lev. 2:9; 6:15). The activity involves offering up or lifting up the cereal to burn as incense as opposed to removing the food offering. It is also noteworthy that Lev. 6:15-20 is the only passage in the OT where rum and tamid are closely linked. This linkage does not exist for sur. The flour lifted up (rum) in Lev. 6:15 was to be a "continual" food offering in verse 20. This is parallel to the linkage of these two words in Dn. 8:11.
The sequential activity of first removing the fat from the inward parts of the sin offering and then lifting up the fat as a burnt offering in Lev. 4 is confirmed by an examination of sur in Lev. 3 in connection with the peace offering of the bullock. A reading of Lev. 3:1-5 reveals that the priest brings near to Jehovah the fat only after it is removed (turned aside) or separated (sur) from the inward parts including the fatty fold by the liver. It is then burned as incense on the altar (v. 5). The same sequence is described more explicitly in verses 9-11. This reading alone would suggest that the rum activity of lifting up the fat following its separation or removal was not involved. However, Lev. 4:10 explicitly states that just as the fat was lifted up (rum) from the sacrifice of the peace offering of the bullock, described in Lev. 3:1-11, so also the fat of the sin offering of Lev. 4:1-12 is to be lifted up from the sin offering and burned as incense after its prior removal (sur) as described in Lev. 3. Hence it becomes clear that there is a two-fold sequential activity involved with both the sin and peace offerings of sacrificial animals. First, the fat is turned aside or separated (sur) from the inward parts and second the separated fat is lifted up (rum) from the animal as an incense offering on the altar of burnt offering. This two-fold sequential activity is in contrast to the singular rum activity associated with the cereal offering. The exclusive cognitive quality of rum (lift up or offer up) is again set forth with the food offerings in Num. 15:19-20 in which the children of Israel are to lift up (rum) a cake of the first of their dough as a heave offering. The use of sur is superfluous since nothing needs to be separated which was previously intimately united such as fat to the inward parts.
The distinctive root meaning of rum is also clearly evident in Lev. 6:10-11 in which the priest "lifts up" the ashes from the altar and places them beside the altar. The priest does not remove (sur) the ashes from the altar since they are first lifted up from and then placed beside the altar. Then, only after changing his garments, the priest brings (the removal activity) the ashes outside the camp.
In every case where rum is employed in the cultic service of Leviticus and Numbers, the accurate, literal rendering is "lift up" or "offer up" in harmony with the root meaning of rum. Rodriguez correctly points out that rum is often used in cultic settings in the sense of "to donate" or "to give a gift" (Num. 15:19-21) but simply acquiesces to Jacob Milgram's assertion that rum should be rendered "to remove, set aside" in Lev. 2:9 & 4:8. However, the context of the passages and the evidence presented reveals that the priest does not set aside but lifts up a food offering and burns it as incense (Lev. 2:9) and lifts up the fat following its separation from the inward parts as offering of incense in Lev. 4:8-10.
It is suggested that the evidence convincingly demonstrates that the distinct cognitive qualities for root meanings of both rum and sur are maintained throughout Leviticus and Daniel as well as the entire OT. The evidence will not substantiate a claim of a specialized use of an "extended" meaning for rum for the cultic functions of Leviticus.
The only two instances among the hundreds of normal renderings where rum is translated as "take away" are found in Dn. 8:11 and Eze. 45:9 in the KJV. The New Englishman's Hebrew Concordance confirms these observations. The phrase in Eze. 45:9 translated as "take away your exactions from my people" is more accurately rendered "take up or lift up your exactions (oppression) from my people". The "daily" is, in fact, "turned aside or taken away" in Dn. 11:31 and Dn. 12:11; but the Hebrew verb sur is used in these instances. Lexical evidence confirms that the basic sense of meaning for sur is "to turn aside" or "to depart" with occasional extended meanings in the hiphil and hophal of "taken away" or "be removed". The Hebrew concordance again confirms that the hundreds of uses of sur in the various verbal forms always have this sense of meaning. The translators of the Hebrew text, apparently in an effort to maintain consistency of "activity of the daily" in Dn. 8:11 with 11:31 & 12:11, translated rum of Dn. 8:11 in this particular instance as "take away" (rather than the correct rendering of "lift up" or "raise up") to correspond with sur of Dn. 11:31 & 12:11.
Hasel does not give any linguistic evidence for his acceptance of the rendering "take away" for rum in Dn. 8:11. He devotes only 4 lines out of 84 pages to this key issue. With the correct translation of rum, Hasel's rendering of the second phrase of verse 11 would be: "from Him (Christ) the daily (Priestly ministry) was lifted up or raised up and the place of His sanctuary was cast down". This rendering is self-contradictory and retains no self-consistency with the text, if the antecedent of "him" is the Prince of the host. The accurate rendering of the second phrase of verse 11 in view of the evidence presented thus far, is: "and from him (Rome: masculine, pagan phase) the daily was lifted up." When "the daily" represents the self-exalting behavior of pagan Rome, as it will be demonstrated, the text is self-consistent and becomes significant. In this case the little horn lifts up this self-exalting character. Ellen White supports this meaning: "paganism" and "her doctrines, ceremonies, and superstitions were incorporated into the faith and worship of the professed followers of Christ" which "resulted in the development of 'the man of sin.'"
5.2.2.2 Hattamid Linkage with Gadal
The vision (chazon) sets forth four major actors: 1) the ram, 2) the goat, 3) the horn from littleness (masculine phase) and 4) the horn from littleness (feminine phase), each with a similar dominant characteristic. Examination of the vision reveals that Daniel consistently introduces and characterizes each of the four major powers with the Hebrew word gadal with the root meaning of "to become great" or "make oneself great". The ram became great in verse 4, the goat "grew very great" in verse 8 and "he came, a horn from littleness, which grew exceedingly great" in verse 9 and the horn from littleness (feminine phase) "became great" in verse 10. Finally in verse 11 the masculine phase of the horn (pagan Rome) "exalts" (becomes great) even to the Prince of host. Furthermore, this characteristic activity (gadal) is transferred or "lifted up" (rum) from him (pagan Rome) by papal Rome. The chart below summarizes the exalting characteristic of the 4 world powers in Dn 8 which culminates in the final step (v. 11) in which papal Rome lifts up the "daily", which is characterized by "gadal", from pagan Rome.
Hattamid Characterized By Gadal ------------------------------- Verse Exalting Verb World Power ----- ------------- ----------- 4 Gadal Ram 8 Gadal Goat 9 Gadal Horn (Masc) 10 Gadal Horn (Fem) 11 Gadal Horn (Masc)Paganism consistently magnifies itself against the Lord in the OT: In Jer. 48:26, 42 Moab magnifies itself (higdil; root is gadal) itself against the Lord; in Ps. 35:26; 38:16 & 55:12, all with Messianic implications, the rebellious magnify themselves (gadal) the Lord. Finally in Dn. 11:36-37, paganism (King of the South) "magnifies (gadal) himself above every god...nor regards any god for he shall magnify (gadal) himself above all.
Miqdash / Qodesh Distinction
----------------------------
| |
Miqdash Qodesh
(Always earthly) (Always Holy)
| |
---------------- -------------
| | | |
Holy Pagan Heavenly Earthly
The evidence supports the contention that miqdash in Dn. 8:11 refers to the counterfeit sanctuary located in pagan Rome from which it practiced continual self-exalting worship against God.