A COMMENTARY ON DANIEL 8

1. In the third year of the reign of Belshazzar the king a vision appeared to me, Daniel, subsequent to the one which appeared to me previously. 2 And I looked in the vision, and it came about while I was looking, that I was in the citadel of Susa, which is in the province of Elam; and I looked in the vision, and I myself was beside the Ulai Canal. 3 Then I lifted my gaze and looked, and behold, a ram which had two horns was standing in front of the canal. Now the two horns were long, but one was longer than the other, with the longer one coming up last. The angel later explains: "The ram which you saw with the two horns represents the kings of Media and Persia" (verse 20). 4. I saw the ram butting westward, northward, and southward, and no other beast could stand before him, nor was there anyone to rescue from his power; but he did as he pleased and magnified himself. 5. While I was observing, behold, a male goat was coming from the west over the surface of the whole earth without touching the ground; and the goat had a conspicuous horn between his eyes. The angel later explains: "And the shaggy goat represents the kingdom of Greece, and the large horn that is between his eyes is the first king" (verse 21). 6 And he came up to the ram that had the two horns, which I had seen standing in front of the canal, and rushed at him in his mighty wrath. 7 And I saw him come beside the ram, and he was enraged at him; and he struck the ram and shattered his two horns, and the ram had no strength to withstand him. So he hurled him to the ground and trampled on him, and there was none to rescue the ram from his power. 8 Then the male goat magnified himself exceedingly. But as soon as he was mighty, the large horn was broken; and in its place there came up four conspicuous horns toward the four winds of heaven. The angel later explains: "And the broken horn and the four horns that arose in its place represent four kingdoms which will arise from his nation, although not with his power" (Verse 22). 9 And out of one of them came forth a rather small horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Beautiful Land. 10 And it grew up to the host of heaven and caused some of the host and some of the stars to fall to the earth, and it trampled them down. 11 It even magnified itself up to the Commander of the host. The angel later explains: "And in the latter period of their rule, when the transgressors have run their course, a king will arise insolent and skilled in intrigue. And his power will be mighty, but not by his own power, and he will destroy to an extraordinary degree and prosper and perform his will; He will destroy mighty men and the holy people. And through his shrewdness he will cause deceit to succeed by his influence; and he will magnify himself in his heart, and he will destroy many while they are at ease. He will even oppose the Prince of princes, but he will be broken without human agency" (verses 23-25).

The prophecy later says of the large horn: "And a mighty king will arise, and he will rule with great authority and do as he pleases. But as soon as he has arisen, his kingdom will be broken up and parceled out toward the four points of the compass, though not to his own descendants, nor according to his authority which he wielded; for his sovereignty will be uprooted and given to others besides them" (11:3,4). This horn, all agree, has been rightfully identified with Alexander the Great.

On the other hand, the identity of the little horn has led to much disagreement. The historicists see in it a symbol of pagan and papal Rome. The preterist view it as the Seleucid king, Antiochus Epiphanes. The controversy may be resolved rather easily if we first examine the original intent of the passage and then compare it with possible historical fulfillments. Our hermeneutic tells us how to do this. "We must seek an understanding of the prophecy from Daniel’s perspective in history; we must assume no more than Daniel could have known." If we do this, we find that both schools are right in a very limited sense. And to balance the many historicist ideas already advanced, and to introduce a key thesis for this chapter, we now cite a representative list of facts that historicists tend to ignore.

First: The understanding that the little horn denotes a kingdom and its division is without precedence. In Daniel, a horn is a single entity for it always denotes an individual king or a minor kingdom, one that is but a fragment of a larger power. This makes sense. If beasts denote kingdoms then you would expect that parts of beasts, i.e. horns, must represent something that are just parts of kingdoms. 

Second: When the angel Gabriel received a divine command to make Daniel understand the vision (8:16), we expect Gabriel to have responded faithfully. There is nothing within the text that suggests the angel Gabriel is not interpreting the vision in plain language. In the angelic explanation, reference is made to the little horn as "he" or "his" thirteen times. In 9:26,27 he is called the "prince" who is to come and the "one" who makes desolate. Furthermore, this "he" more naturally represents a single individual than an empire because "he" has human characteristics. "He" is shrewd and deceitful, insolent and skilled in intrigue. His vaulting ambition (which is so forcefully displayed in the imagery of Dan 8:10-11) is to be compared with the arrogance of the king of Babylon who, like Satan, had thought to ascend to heaven and enthrone himself above the stars of God (Isa 14:13-14). 

Third: The little horn is not a super military power, for its greatness is confined within certain directions (8:9). We will see later that ships from Kittim effectively oppose his second attack on the king of the south (11:30). This is quite unlike the fourth beast in chapter 7, for it devoured the whole earth by treading it down, crushing everything in its way.

Fourth: Quite naturally, horns come from animals and the horns of animals. They never originate from the wind. And it is not too surprising to find that, in the general category of all apocalyptic literature, horns are always attached to beasts. Daniel therefore saw the rather small horn come from one of the four horns of the he-goat, not from one of the four winds (The Hebrew of 8:9 is ambiguous). But Rome failed to arise from the divided Macedonian empire of Alexander the Great (SDA.BC Vol 4, p. 841). Also, the fourth beast is distinct from all other kingdoms. Even if it was to originate from one of the four fragment kingdoms of Greece, it would then be one of the four—an immediate contradiction (also of 7:19 cf. 8:22).

Fifth: Many historicists argue that Rome, the monster-like fourth beast, personified by the little horn, came out of one of the four winds rather than out of one of the four horns. "Such an interpretation, however, makes the identification of this origin void of any significance" (Wm. Shea, Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, p. 54).

Conclusion: We argue that since the text itself suggests excellent reasons that the little horn stands for an individual king, and since there are no contextual reasons that he is not an individual king, then, in the intended meaning of the passage, he is to be understood as an individual king.

Thesis

That the Hebrew grammar may refer to the little horn as coming from one of the four horns or from one of the four winds may be by design. The ambiguity, if relevant, suggests a turning point and a bridge that connects the two sections of Daniel and their respective scenarios. The ambiguity reminds us of the fourth beast which follows the divided Greek kingdom from one of the four points of the compass and, at the same time, introduces the last king of the northern horn (11:21-45), that tyrant prince who suddenly appears as if by flight from the wind, the one who comes riding on the wing of abominations (9:27). 

That the little horn parallels the fourth beast in many respects affirms the idea that the ambiguities were intentional. The meaning is that the little horn was to foreshadow future desolations as the forerunner of the fourth beast. That he was also to be a type of the Roman antichrist is suggested from the rather natural expectation that the little horns of Daniel 7 & 8 should stand for the same type of thing since the same kind of symbol is being used!

Some imagery is easy to understand. When combined with symbolism, as in Daniel 8:9-11, it makes exegesis just a little bit more difficult. To illustrate what is involved in our study of these three verses, consider the meaning of the following text: ...."the Lord has covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in His anger! He has cast from heaven to earth the glory of Israel, and has not remembered His footstool in the day of His anger. The Lord has swallowed up; He has not spared all the habitations of Jacob. In His wrath He has thrown down the strongholds of the daughter of Judah; He has brought them down to the ground" (Lam 2:1,2).

QUESTION: Jerusalem, God’s footstool, was the glory of Israel. Was it really cast down from heaven to earth? Were the strongholds of the daughter of Judah really thrown down to the ground? Does this heaven-to-earth representation of destruction make sense in Daniel 8:9-11? 

9 And out of one of them came forth a rather small horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Beautiful Land. 10 And it grew up to the host of heaven and caused some of the host and some of the stars to fall to the earth, and it trampled them down. 11 It even magnified itself up to the Commander of the host; and it removed the regular sacrifice from Him, and the place of His sanctuary was cast down.

The focus of verse 9 is the little horn’s conquests in the earthly plane. Verses 10-11, however, graphically portray his assault in the spiritual realm by an attack against heaven itself. He carries out his offensive against the host of heaven and moves against their Commander. He interrupts the worship made to Him and throws down the place of His sanctuary. These events, portrayed as taking place in the heavens, correspond perfectly to what the little horn would do on earth. This correspondence was beautifully crafted with special words perfectly suited to the imagery created. To see this, we must become very acquainted with all the possible meanings of the words employed.

The word host in 8:10-13 commonly refers to the heavenly bodies: "And beware, lest you lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, and be drawn away and worship them and serve them, those which the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven" (Deu 4:19). "And they forsook all the commandments of the Lord their God and made for themselves molten images, even two calves, and made an Asherah and worshiped all the host of heaven and served Baal" (2 Ki 17:16). "...those who burned incense to Baal, to the sun and to the moon and to the constellations and to all the host of heaven" (2 Ki 23:5). "...the sun or the moon or any of the heavenly host, which I have not commanded" (Deu 17:3). Also see 2 Ki 21:3,5; 23:4; 2 Chr 18:18; 33:3,5 Neh 9:6; Ps 33:6; Isa 34:4; 40:26; 45:12; Jer 8:2; 19:13; Zep 1:5.

The word host frequently refers to armies, and is usually translated so (Ge 21:22,32; Num 2:4-30; 31:48; 2 Sa 2:8; 3:23; 8:16; 10:7,16,18; 17:25; 19:13; 20:23; etc.). The word host is also used for fallen or unfallen angels: "So it will happen in that day, that the Lord will punish the host of heaven, on high, and the kings of the earth, on earth" (Isa 24:21). "And Micaiah said, ‘Therefore, hear the word of the Lord. I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing on His right and on His left’" (2 Chr 18:18). "And suddenly there appeared with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God" (Lk 2:13). — In addition, stars in symbolic language may represent angels (Rev 1:20, 9:1).

The host and stars of heaven also represent the literal descendants of Israel; God said to Abram: " ‘Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.’ And He said to him, ‘So shall your descendants be.’ " "Indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies" (Gen 15:5; 22:17).

God said to Moses: "When Pharaoh will not listen to you, then I will lay My hand on Egypt, and bring out My hosts, My people the sons of Israel, from the land of Egypt by great judgments" (Ex 7:4). "And it came about at the end of four hundred and thirty years, to the very day, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt" (Ex 12:41). "But David did not count those twenty years of age and under, because the Lord had said He would multiply Israel as the stars of heaven" (1 Chr 27:23).

We have stated all the possibilities; this last choice is the one employed: To cast down the host and stars, we are told, signifies the destruction of the people of God (8:24). Recall that stars are an expression of God’s O.T. covenant promise. Notice how falling stars echo the undoing of that promise: "You who were as numerous as the stars in the sky will be left but few in number, because you did not obey the Lord your God" (Deu 28:62).

The people of God are depicted as the armies of heaven. This matches the imagistic expression: "The Commander (or Captain) of the heavenly host." There is an interesting account in the OT where Joshua met this Commander:

"Now it came about when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man was standing opposite him with his sword drawn in his hand, and Joshua went to him and said to him, ‘Are you for us or for our adversaries?’ And he said, ‘No, rather I indeed come now as captain of the host of the Lord.’ And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and bowed down, and said to him, ‘What has my lord to say to his servant?’ And the Captain of the Lord’s host said to Joshua, ‘Remove your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy.’ And Joshua did so" (Joshua 5:13-15).

The Commander of the heavenly host is no earthly being. His representative on earth, then, is no ordinary man. He is the Prince of princes (8:25), the Prince of the covenant (11:22), the Anointed One (9:25). The vision explains itself. The assault on the Prince of Heaven signifies His death by the armies of the little horn (11:22). Paul was correct when he identified Jesus Christ as the Commander of the host in his comment on the Exodus experience. See 1 Cor 10:1-4 cf. Ps 78:10-16.

The duality between heaven and earth continues in this brilliant piece of apocalyptic imagery. Another relationship is cleverly expressed in the Hebrew word used for "place" in the 11th verse. This word (makon) occurs only 17 times in the Hebrew Bible. It has a specialized meaning. In every instance, it refers to the place of God — either heaven as God’s dwelling place or God’s place on earth — or to the foundation of His throne or temple (1 Ki 8:39,43,49, Ps 33:14, Isa 18:4; Ex 15:17, Isa 4:5, 1 Ki 8:13; Ps 104:5, 89:14, 97:2, Ezr 2:68). And since an understanding of this word adds considerable insight into the meaning of the vision, we take the time to think about every occurrence of it in the Hebrew Bible.

Heaven, God’s Dwelling Place
In a prayer to God, Solomon three times employs the phrase: "then hear Thou in heaven Thy dwelling place" (1 Kings 8:39,43,49, NASB, parallel to 2 Chr 6). The NIV renders it: "Then hear from heaven, your dwelling place." Clearly, the "dwelling place" of God is heaven. Heaven is, therefore, the place of God in the next two references also. Note the Hebrew parallelism:

"The Lord looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men; From His dwelling place He looks out on all the inhabitants of the earth" (Ps 33:13,14). "For thus the Lord has told me, I will look from My dwelling place quietly like dazzling heat in the sunshine, like a cloud of dew in the heat of harvest" (Isa 18:3,4).

God’s Place on Earth
"Thou wilt bring them and plant them in the mountain of Thine inheritance, the place, O Lord, which Thou hast made for Thy dwelling, the sanctuary, O Lord, which Thy hands have established" (Ex 15:17). — We interpret this mountain to be all of the Holy Land [Ex 15:13 cf. Ps 78:54].

"Then the Lord will create over the whole area of Mount Zion and over her assemblies a cloud by day, even smoke, and the brightness of a flaming fire by night; for over all the glory will be a canopy. And there will be a shelter to give shade from the heat by day, and refuge and protection from the storm and the rain" (Isa 4:5,6).

The Hebrew word makon may also refer to the temple in Jerusalem: "I have surely built Thee a lofty house, a place for Thy dwelling forever" (1 Ki 8:13 parallel to 2 Chr 6:2).

The Foundations of Heaven and Earth
"He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter forever and ever" (Ps 104:5). "Righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne" (Ps 89:14; 97:2). "And some of the heads of fathers’ households, when they arrived at the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem, offered willingly for the house of God to restore it on its foundation" (Ezr 2:68).

We now ask: Precisely what is meant by the phrase: "the place of His sanctuary." This expression is unique where "place" is makon. We therefore examine every similar phrase. There are only two and these employ the common Hebrew word for place: 1. "A glorious throne on high from the beginning is the place of our sanctuary" (Jer 17:12). Since the city of Jerusalem is specifically identified as "the throne of the Lord" (Jer 3:17) and "the throne of Thy glory" (Jer 14:21), the place of our sanctuary therefore denotes the city Jerusalem. 2. The Lord said through the prophet Isaiah: "The glory of Lebanon will come to you, the juniper, the box tree, and the cypress together, to beautify the place of My sanctuary; And I shall make the place of My feet glorious" (Isa 60:13). So The place of My sanctuary, in this passage, denotes all of the Holy Land or Jerusalem. It should be kept in mind that the temple was thought of as the very center of this place.

Finally we ask: Precisely what is meant by the casting down of the place of God’s sanctuary? Answer: If we follow the continuity already established, the casting down of the heavenly place of God’s sanctuary must represent actions against the earthly place of His sanctuary. If taking the imagery seriously, the term, cast down, would denote destruction. The terminology reminds us of Christ’s words: "There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down" (Mt 24:2).

To cast down has a range of application that is really quite singular. The Psalmist used it to denote the destruction of those who, in the wilderness experience, grumbled for forty years against the Lord (Ps 106:23-26). It was employed similarly by Jeremiah as a synonym for destruction when he described the laying waste of Jerusalem’s dwellings by the Babylonians (Jer 9:19 cf. 6:15). It was used by Isaiah to denote the impending destruction by Assyria (Isa 26:5). But the sheer genius displayed here, as in Lam 2:1-2, is that the figurative meaning of the term coincides with its more literal meaning in the vision. The vision then is perfectly clear and unambiguous: The place of the sanctuary is destroyed.

Some assert that the term "cast down" denotes profanation, but such a claim has no Biblical support. "There is no example among the 125 usages of this verb in the OT that suggests or hints either in a literal or a metaphorical sense that its meaning has anything to do with defilement, desecration, or the like. This fact can hardly be overemphasized. A ‘throwing down’ hardly communicates an act of defilement but rather an act of destruction in a concrete literal setting" (Gerhard Hasel, The Sanctuary and the Atonement, p. 192).

Conclusion: 

The symbolism points to the city Jerusalem as the place of His sanctuary being destroyed. This is confirmed by the interpretive section in this unit of prophecy (9:24,26). This position happens to coincide with the widely held historicist view in Reformation Protestantism. 

An examination of Christ’s remarks on the prophecy reveals the deepest possible meaning. He understood the casting down of the place of God’s sanctuary as representing a far-reaching apocalyptic symbol of destruction — a view which is expressive of all the different meanings of the word makon. Christ’s application encompasses the destruction of the Holy Land (Lk 21:23), the city (Lk 21:20), and the temple (Lk 13:35), down to the very foundation (Mt 24:2). Jerusalem interestingly enough means "foundations of peace."

In regard to the identity of the "place of His sanctuary" (8:11), some historicists reject the Scriptural meaning of this phrase (which points to the city of Jerusalem) and immediately suppose from the imagery alone that the temple in heaven is meant (vss. 10-12 cf. Heb 8:2). But the term "cast down" refers to the destruction of this place and this can hardly be said of the heavenly sanctuary. Such a position therefore not only ignores unique word usage but it also fails to recognize the consistent nature of the imagery: We have already shown how the events portrayed as taking place in the heavens correspond perfectly to what the little horn would do on earth. Yes, it appears that the little horn cast down the place of God’s sanctuary out of heaven. But he also casts earthward, the host and stars and these are explained to be the people of God, not celestial beings. Furthermore, the angelic interpretation tells us that this vision refers to the destruction of the holy city and its people (8:24 cf. 9:24,26), and this, must I say, occurs on earth!

Wm. H. Shea, famed author of the book, Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, seems to accept the validity of the argument that demands that the sanctuary was to be "cast down" in the Biblical sense for he uses this reasoning to refute the Antiochus interpretation. He accurately expresses the simplicity of the argument as follows: 

"It was this ‘place’ of God’s sanctuary that was to be cast down by the little horn, according to Dan 8:11. One could apply this to what the Romans did to the temple in A.D. 70. But Antiochus never did anything to the temple which would qualify as ‘casting down its makon,’ or place. Desecrate it he did; but, as far as is known, he did not damage its architecture in any significant way. On the contrary, it would have been to his disadvantage to have done so, since he turned it over to be used for the cult of Zeus. Thus while it is fair to say that Antiochus suspended the daily or continual sacrifices/ministration of the temple, we have no indication that he cast it down from its place, or cast down its place. Consequently, this aspect of the prophecy is in opposition to the interpretation of the little horn as Antiochus IV" (pp. 38-39).

Shea later restates this same point: "While Antiochus IV did suspend the regular sacrifices of the temple in Jerusalem (and he did introduce the worship of another cult there), he did not ‘cast down’ the ‘place’ (makon) of the temple, which is listed among the things the little horn was to do to the temple in Dan 8" (p. 54).

That Shea never even cites examples of Biblical usage of the term "cast down" but simply expects that it is synonymous for destruction proves how intuitive and natural this meaning really is. That he repeats the objection reflects an attitude that the argument is impressive. That he takes the imagery of the vision literally and imagines that the place of God’s sanctuary stands for the literal temple in heaven and that it was, in actual fact, "cast down" by an earthly power is more difficult to understand. Curiously, and without a hint of justification, he explains just how the heavenly sanctuary was cast down. He states that this was accomplished by its profanation (p. 50).

Do we have a striking contradiction? Not at all! That Shea and Hasel really accept a position that they have so forcefully refuted, that they only deny the Biblical meaning of the term "cast down" if convenient for them to do so, that they ignore and actually reject the logic of the very same argument they themselves use against the preterists (if employed as an objection against the popular historicist position), is really quite understandable. These outspoken critics of the preterist view are among the leading defenders of the historicist faith.

ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSGRESSION AND THE ANGER OF GOD

Many events regarding the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians have been repeated in the time of Christ. The specifics of either catastrophe fulfill the covenant curses of Deu 28:49-57. The prophet Habakkuk alludes to these judgments (Hab 1:5-11) and warns that the Babylonians will punish Judah for her sins, and thus fulfill the curse. These prophetic judgments fall as a consequence of disobedience and refer to any time the conditions would be fulfilled. So we now concern ourself with the conditions that were repeated, the circumstances that led to the destruction of Jerusalem in the time of the Babylonians and in the first century. We note the reason for the destruction behind the common imagery:

"Because of the multitude of her transgressions" (Lam 1:5) ...."the Lord has covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in His anger! He has cast from heaven to earth the glory of Israel, and has not remembered His footstool in the day of His anger. The Lord has swallowed up; He has not spared all the habitations of Jacob. In His wrath He has thrown down the strongholds of the daughter of Judah; He has brought them down to the ground" (Lam 2:1,2).

12 And on account of transgression the host will be given over to the horn along with the regular sacrifice; and it will fling truth to the ground and perform its will and prosper.

The words translated cast and fling are the same Hebrew word. We have seen previously that place is the foundation of "justice and righteousness." These are parallel to truth (Isa 59:14,15). Thus the symbolism above also embraces truth being thrown down. The 12th verse makes this connection.

Similar imagery is expressed in Amos 5:7 (NASB). It refers to "those who turn justice into wormwood and cast righteousness down to the earth."

We ask several key questions at this time: Why does God allow the place of His sanctuary to be cast down? Why is the host given over to the little horn along with the regular sacrifice? And who gives over the sanctuary and host to be trampled in verse 13? Finally, Why does Daniel employ a Hebrew word (indignation, 8:19; 11:36) that is used exclusively in the OT for the wrath of God? (Ps 38:3, 69:24, 78:49, 102:10, Isa 10:5,25, 13:5, 26:20, 30:27, Jer 10:10, 15:17, 50:25, Lam 2:6, Ezk 21:31, 22:24,31, Hos 7:16, Nah 1:6, Hab 3:12, Zeph 3:8); See our exhaustive word study at the bottom of this page. Clearly, God is acting because He is angered over the sins of His people!

The importance of verse 12 is that it is both a commentary and a summary of the high points of the vision, vs 10-11. The key phrase here is: "And on account of transgression" for it tells us why these events must occur. It also explains Daniel’s usage of the word indignation. The Interpreter’s Bible commentary clarifies the significance. They point out that: "In the writings of the prophets this word became a technical term for the indignation of Yahweh expressed against men for their sinfulness."

We ask: What men? Who are the transgressors that run their full course in 8:23? And who are the host given over to be trampled in 8:13? And on account of whose transgression is the little horn allowed to cause such fearful destruction? — Clearly, the indignation here is directed against the host and stars, God’s OT covenant people, as identified by the Bible itself.

EVERY OCCURRENCE OF THE HEBREW WORD INDIGNATION (Da 8:19; 11:36)

"There is no soundness in my flesh because of Thine indignation; There is no health in my bones, because of my sin." Ps 38:3. 

"Pour out Thine indignation on them, and may Thy burning anger overtake them." Ps 69:24. 

"He sent upon them His burning anger, fury, and indignation, and trouble, a band of destroying angels." Ps 78:49. 

"My enemies have reproached me all day long; those who deride me have used my name as a curse. For I have eaten ashes like bread, and mingled my drink with weeping, because of Thine indignation and Thy wrath; for thou hast lifted me up and cast me away. My days are like a lengthened shadow; and I wither away like grass." Ps 102:8-11. 

"Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger and the staff in whose hands is My indignation, I send it against a godless nation and commission it against the people of my fury to capture booty and to seize plunder, and to trample them down like mud in the streets." Isa 10:5. 

"For in a very little while My indignation against you will be spent, and My anger will be directed to their destruction." Isa 10:25.

"The oracle concerning Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw. Lift up a standard on the bare hill, raise your voice to them, wave the hand that they may enter the doors of the nobles. I have commanded My consecrated ones, I have even called My mighty warriors, My proudly exulting ones, to execute My anger. A sound of tumult on the mountains, like that of many people! A sound of the uproar of kingdoms, of nations gathered together! The Lord of hosts is mustering the army for battle. They are coming from a far country, from the farthest horizons, the Lord and His instruments of indignation, to destroy the whole land." Isa 13:1-5.

"Come, my people, enter into your rooms, and close your doors behind you; Hide for a little while, until indignation runs its course. For behold, the Lord is about to come out from his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity; and the earth will reveal her bloodshed, and will no longer cover her slain." Isa 26:20,21.

"Behold, the name of the Lord comes from a remote place; burning is His anger, and dense is His smoke; His lips are filled with indignation, and His tongue is like a consuming fire; His breath is like an over-flowing torrent, which reaches to the neck, to shake the nations back and forth in a sieve, and to put in the jaws of the peoples the bridle which leads to ruin." Isa 30:27,28.

"But the Lord is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King. At his wrath the earth quakes, and the nations cannot endure His indignation." Jer 10:10. 

"Thy words were found and I ate them, and Thy words became for me a joy and the delight of my heart; for I have been called by Thy name, O Lord God of hosts. I did not sit in the circle of merrymakers, Nor did I exult. Because of Thy hand upon me I sat alone, for Thou didst fill me with indignation." Jer 15:16,17.

"The Lord has opened His armory and has brought forth the weapons of His indignation, for it is a work of the Lord God of hosts in the land of the Chaldeans." Jer 50:25.

"The Lord has become like an enemy. He has swallowed up Israel; He has swallowed up all its palaces; He has destroyed its strongholds and multiplied in the daughter of Judah mourning and moaning. And He has violently treated His tabernacle like a garden booth; He has destroyed His appointed meeting place; The Lord has caused to be forgotten the appointed feast and sabbath in Zion, and He has despised king and priest in the indignation of His anger." Lam 2:5,6.

" ‘And I shall pour out My indignation on you; I shall blow on you with the fire of My wrath, and I shall give you into the hand of brutal men, skilled in destruction.’" Ezk 21:31.

"And the word of the Lord came to me saying, ‘Son of man, the house of Israel has become dross to Me; all of them are bronze and tin and iron and lead in the furnace; they are the dross of silver.’ Therefore, thus says the Lord God, ‘Because all of you have become dross, therefore, behold, I am going to gather you into the midst of Jerusalem. As they gather silver and bronze and iron and lead and tin into the furnace to blow fire on it in order to melt it, so I shall gather you in My anger and in My wrath, and I shall lay you there and melt you. And I shall gather you and blow on you with the fire of My wrath, and you will be melted in the midst of it. As silver is melted in the furnace, so you will be melted in the midst of it; and you will know that I, the Lord, have poured out My wrath on you.’ And the word of the Lord came to me saying, "Son of man, say to her, ‘You are a land that is not cleansed or rained on in the day of indignation.’" Ezk 22:17-24.

" ‘Thus I have poured out My indignation on them; I have consumed them with the fire of My wrath; their way I have brought upon their heads,’ declares the Lord God." Ezk 22:31.

"Who can stand before His indignation? Who can endure the burning of His anger? His wrath is poured out like fire, and the rocks are broken up by Him." Nah 1:6.

"In indignation Thou didst march through the earth; In anger Thou didst trample the nations." Hab 3:12.

" ‘Therefore, wait for Me,’ declares the Lord, ‘For the day when I rise up to the prey. Indeed, My decision is to gather nations, to assemble kingdoms, to pour out on them My indignation, all My burning anger; for all the earth will be devoured by the fire of My zeal.’" Zeph 3:8.

There is only one exception to the rule that indignation refers exclusively to the wrath of God, Hos 7:16. Hosea used this word to describe the deadliness of the human tongue, an appropriate application however (Compare Isa 30:27 with Ps 64:2,3 & James 3:5-8).

The "Daily"

We have already examined several words and phrases that, if taken together, well express the anger of God over the sins of His people. The term used for the regular sacrifice continues this thought. It also sheds light on the people’s spiritual condition. Observe that the little horn always halts the "continual" and the word sacrifice does not appear in the Hebrew for 8:11,12,13, 11:31 12:11. Daniel alone, unique among all Bible writers, chose to call the continual sacrifice simply the "continual." The very omission of the word "sacrifice" conveys the idea that this sacred ceremony would become a spiritless act of worship. The word "continual" standing alone suggests a daily "routine". Centuries later, Jewish writers of the Talmud and Mishnah did in fact and unknowingly fulfill Daniel’s prophecy, calling the "regular sacrifice" simply the "continual". Even Christian writers unknowingly do the very same thing (when they speak of type and Antitype) for they often refer to the "regular" sacrifices as the "typical service". This characterization is thoroughly Biblical. In the epistle to the Hebrews, as Randolph E. Neall points out, "the old covenant, in contrast to the new, is consistently characterized as pertaining to things "daily", "repetitive", and "continual" (Hebrews 7:27, 9:6, 10:1-3,11 cf. 9:12,25-28, 10:9,10,12,14)" (Assize Vol 1.1, p. 31).

A Spiritualized Version of the Antiochus Interpretation

Da 8:11-12 said: "It (the little horn) even magnified itself up to the Prince of the host; and it removed the continual from Him and the place of His sanctuary was cast down." "And on account of transgression, the host will be given over to the horn along with the continual." (NASB)

Some historicists maintain that the continual refers to "the continual priestly ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary and the true worship of Christ in the gospel age" (SDA.BC on 8:11). .....But how can an earthly power remove Christ’s heavenly high priestly ministry? Christ "holds His priesthood permanently" (Heb 7:24). And how can Christ ever give it up? "He ever liveth to make intercession" for us (Heb 7:25).

That the heavenly sanctuary was given over to be trampled in Daniel 8:13 is very confusing. Yet verse 13 implies that the sanctuary in question is "trampled," and true, this word can mean profane as in the trampling under foot the Son of God (Heb 10:29). But if we consider the immediate context of the book of Daniel, then all difficulties vanish. There, one finds that "to trample" is a term employed exclusively to denote destruction (7:7,19; 8:7; 8:10 cf. 8:24). So when the sanctuary and host are given over to be trampled (vs. 13 cf. 8:10-12), they are then trampled together in the same physical way, just as one would expect. Again, this can hardly be said of the temple in heaven. Furthermore, since Daniel 9 is an interpretive section for this prophecy, there is no reason to suppose that the sanctuary of 8:13,14 is any different than the one in 9:26, and that sanctuary is destroyed by the armies of the very same little horn!

Contextual Realism

Daniel must be understood in the light of previous prophetic declarations, i.e., that the Messianic kingdom was to be established shortly after the Babylonian captivity. And if the people were faithful to God and had obeyed His covenant, it would have occurred. The focus and central theme of this vision however presents an alternative possibility. Until the end of time, on account of transgression, the Jews would be subject to Gentile nations and the Messianic kingdom would be delayed. And the period of rebellion is long. The vision spans the history of kingdoms: Medo-Persia, Greece, and divided Greece (8:20-22).

The phrase: "latter end of the indignation" (8:19) implies that this whole period is the outworking of divine wrath. Sacred history testifies that God’s displeasure was coincident with this period of rebellion. — When the temple was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BC, the glory of God’s presence was withdrawn (see Ezk 10). It never returned when the temple was rebuilt.

This silence agrees with the nearly complete absence of God’s messengers throughout this period. God had indeed turned away from His sinful people. It had truly appeared that He had abandoned them. This is what the hiding of God’s face means (2 Chr 30:9 Job 13:24 Ps 10:11, 13:1, 22:24, 27:9, 44:24, 88:14, 102:2, Isa 54:7,8, 64:7, Ezk 39:23,24). But something more terrible was to happen at the latter end of the indignation! It is expressed within a curious feature of the vision: Unlike the dreams of chapters 2 & 7, this vision (8:2-12) ends abruptly, unexpectedly, seemingly in mid-stream. It just stops with the destruction of Jerusalem. Then the fourth kingdom, which was to follow, is omitted and a definite conclusion about the Messianic kingdom is clearly ignored in the explanatory sections of chapters 8 and 9.

The abruptness of the vision seems to act out and illustrate a scenario similar to the word of the Lord spoken to Moses (Deu 31:16-18) but under circumstances and with an outcome of even greater severity: The Jewish nation was to withdraw completely from God and from the covenant relationship with their rejection of Christ. God was then to reject that nation. The time of this separation was to be at the last scene of the vision — the casting down of Jerusalem. It was to have been the last event of Greek history.

The emphasis and focus of this revelation is "what shall be at the latter end of the indignation" (8:19). Hence, the little horn is limited to a specific moment in history. Then God’s indignation against the Jews comes to an end as they are given over to a tyrant prince who destroys them and the place of their sanctuary. Then a long period of trampling begins under the fourth kingdom. It is important to note that the trampling to follow the Greek kingdom, by the fourth beast, need not have been mentioned. It was already firmly impressed upon Daniel’s mind (7:7,19,23). And recall that the little horn foreshadowed future desolations as the forerunner of the fourth beast. That is what their parallelism suggested!

13 Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said to the one that spoke, "For how long is the vision concerning the continual burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled under foot?" R.S.V.

The angel is simply asking: How long is the vision about the rebellion with the trampling that follows?

How long is the vision? — The vision begins with Medo-Persia and continues until Jerusalem (the place of the sanctuary) is cast down. How long is the trampling? — The trampling begins during the last scenes of the vision. It continues until God intervenes with a pre-advent judgment at the end of time (Da 7).

Jesus also understood that this trampling was to begin with the destruction of Jerusalem and that it was to continue for a long period: 

"... But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is at hand. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are in the midst of the city depart, and let not those who are in the country enter the city; because these are days of vengeance, in order that all things which are written may be fulfilled. Woe to those who are with child and to those who nurse babes in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land, and wrath to this people, and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" (Luke 21:20-24).

We find in the words of Christ a remarkable correspondence with Daniel’s prophecy. First: The holy land and Jerusalem was to be cast down and trampled. Second: Wrath was toward the Jews and that those days were days of vengeance. Third: The seventy weeks of probation for the Jewish nation were about to end and when this happened it was to be the time of the Gentiles. Fourth: This was the beginning of a trampling that continues for long ages. Fifth: So all of Daniel’s prophecy could be fulfilled.

The Separation Principle Justified

"But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He does not hear" (Isa 59:2).

"For this is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says about the houses in this city and the royal palaces of Judah ...’They will be filled with the dead bodies of the men I will slay in my anger and wrath. I will hide My face from this city because of all its wickedness’" (Jer 33:5).

"Then they will cry out to the Lord, but He will not answer them. Instead, He will hide His face from them at that time, because they have practiced evil deeds" (Mic 3:4).

A RUNNING SUMMARY 

Let us summarize what we have so far. Verse 13 refers to "the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled." Verse 12 mentions that "the host will be given over to the horn along with the regular sacrifice." (This is like Daniel 7:25 where it says that "the holy ones will be given into his hand," i.e., the hand of the Roman Antichrist). This thought is also present in verse 11. Dr. A. M. Rodriguez, writing for the Biblical Research Institute, made the following scholarly comments in an insert/supplement to the Adventist Review, September 1994:

The Hebrew verb shalak, "to throw, to cast" is used in Hebrew in a similar manner to the English equivalent. In both languages the verb "to throw/cast" very often takes a preposition. Something is cast "to the ground" (Dan. 8:7, RSV), "behind your back" (1 Kings 14;9 RSV), from somewhere (2 Kings 14:20), in some place (Amos 8:3), "on" someone (2 Sam. 11:21, NIV), "outside the gates" (Jer. 22:19, NIV), etc. The meaning of the verb is somewhat affected by the preposition it takes.

In Daniel 8:11 the verb shalak, "to throw, to cast," is not accompanied by a preposition or an adverb—it stands all by itself. The text simply reads: "the place of the sanctuary was cast/thrown." The English translation does not make sense unless an adverb is added to it. Various translations read "cast/thrown down." The adverb "down" is not in the original. Daniel 8:11 is not the only passage in the Old Testament where this verb stands by itself without a preposition or an adverb. In those other passages the verb "to throw/cast" is used to express the idea of rejection, abandonment. For instance, desperate soldiers trying to escape the enemy had "thrown" (abandoned) their equipment (2 Kings 7:15, RSV); an olive tree throws (discards, rejects) its blossoms (Job 15:33); the Israelites did not throw (forsake, reject) their idols (Eze. 20:8; cf. Isa. 2:20); the slain of the nations will be thrown (abandoned), that is, they will not be buried (Isa. 34:3; cf. Jer. 36:30); the psalmist prays, "Do not cast me [reject, forsake] me ... when I am old" (Ps. 71:9, NIV). These examples show that the verb "to cast" can be a synonym of such verbs as "to reject, forsake, abandon."

So, in Daniel 8:11, we have the stunning and superior insight that the place of His sanctuary was to be cast/thrown down, in the sense of being rejected, abandoned, and forsaken for destruction. This is precisely the meaning given by Jesus in Luke 13:35 — "Behold, your house is left to you desolate." NASB. The word "desolate" has been added; It does not appear in the earliest manuscripts. 

A VARIANT READING OF DANIEL 8:13

For additional insight into the question asked by the angel, and to establish that the same basic conclusions on verse 13 may be reached from another direction, we consider the spirit of the N.E.B. translation: 

13 How long is the vision and the interrupted continual, The rebellion of desolation and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled under foot? *

The word "concerning" in the R.S.V. has been supplied; It goes beyond that which is actually given in the Hebrew text. The translators rightly understood however that the Hebrew calls for something to follow the word "vision" — to give the thought of inclusion for the next word or group of words. The Hebrew is perhaps better satisfied if the word and is inserted. This choice is preferred on the basis of symmetry and harmony of the context. For example: The resulting translation then yields a Hebrew parallelism: 

The phrase: the vision and the interrupted continual is equivalent to: The rebellion of desolation and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled under foot.

The vision, we have seen, describes a rebellion that brings desolation. Also, the time the sacrifices are suspended parallels the time when the sanctuary and host would be trampled. The angel’s question therefore spans all that was seen in vision and all that was to follow. The angel (in agreement with the RSV rendering) is simply asking: ‘How long is the vision about the rebellion with the trampling that follows?’ — And it fits the context perfectly: The trampling that was to continue under the omitted fourth world kingdom was certainly in the angel’s mind.

* The N.E.B. translation of verse 13: "For how long will the period of this vision last? How long will the regular offering be suppressed, how long will impiety cause desolation, and both the Holy Place and the fairest of all lands be given over to be trodden down? 

In order to understand the answer given to the question, we should first understand the question itself. ... The Hebrew text does not read "the vision of/concerning the continual burnt offering." Rather, what we find is an interrogative particle followed by several nouns referring back to what Daniel saw before: Until when the vision (chazon) the continual (tamid) the rebellion (peshac). — A. M. Rodriguez, Adventist Review, Insert p. 7, September 1994.

There is a certain strangeness attached to how the angel answered this question. See verse 14. However, all its seeming peculiarities will be justified in our comments on v. 26.

14 And he said to me, "For 2,300 days [evenings-mornings]; then the sanctuary shall be purified/cleansed [righteous-ed]." NAB/KJV.

This reply must answer the angel’s question of 8:13. This demands that the 2300 days are symbolic of a much longer period of time. There is only one possible meaning: "Scripture does at times use days for years"; In fact: "The following are some of the passages where translators use years" because the context demands it, "though the original has yamin (days): Ex 13:10, Num 9:22, Josh 13:1, Jud 11:40, Jud 21:19, 1 Sam 1:3, 1 Sam 2:19, (twice)" (Desmond Ford, Daniel 8:14, The Day of Atonement and the Investigative Judgment, p. 202).

We have shown that days can mean years and that the context of 8:13-14 demands it here. Notice too that days for years arise at times when God is angered over the sins of His people (Ezk 4:4-6, Num 14:32-35). Again, such is the context (8:12,19,23).

The Hebrew word that is usually translated cleansed or restored in this passage is nisdaq. The term or root from which this word was formed is the verb sadaq. "It occurs 22 times in the active form (qal), 5 times in the intensive (piel), 12 in the causative (hiphil), once in the reflexive (hithpael), and once in the passive (niphal). This last type is found in Daniel 8:14; hence the form nisdaq. This passive form of the root sadaq unfortunately is a hapax legomenon (a word which occurs only once in the Bible). This raises the question, How shall it be properly translated?" (Frank B. Holbrook, Editor, Symposium on Daniel, p. 479). This same source explains just how easily this is done:

"The Qal forms mean ‘to be in the right, be right, have a just case, be vindicated, be just, righteous.’ The intensive forms of the Piel mean ‘to declare someone to be right, to make someone appear righteous, innocent, to desire oneself just.’ The causative Hiphil forms mean ‘to give or bring justice, to declare righteous, to justify, vindicate.’ And finally, the one Hithpael form means, ‘to justify oneself’" (ibid), p. 452. On page 479: 

"The causative form (hiphil) of sadaq will mean ‘cause to be right,’ ‘cause to be just.’ The reflexive form (hithpael) will mean ‘make oneself right,’ or ‘justify oneself.’ In the same way nisdaq is simply the passive of sadaq, and will have the meaning ‘be made right,’ ‘be made just,’ or the like." "This", they say, "would be the simplest and most straightforward translation, and is the one followed by most recent Bible translators." "They have followed the immediate, ordinary meaning of the word" (ibid), p. 479.

Some have in mind that "the basic meaning of sadaq is ‘just,’ ‘right,’ or some similar term" (p. 495). This kind of reasoning is somewhat oversimplified and misleading. "All lexicons agree in giving the meaning of the word as ‘to be just,’ ‘to be righteous.’ In 8:14 the word occurs in the Niphal form (the reflexive or passive), and would ordinarily be translated ‘be justified,’ or ‘be made righteous’" (Problems in Bible Translation, p. 175). 

To avoid possible confusion and to convey what is happening in the Hebrew construction of the word, Raymond Cottrell renders it: "righteous-ed." We prefer this translation. It stresses the uniqueness of the verb form and it agrees with the fact that all the variations of sadaq point to a finished act and completeness, never to an unfinished process in action.

The accuracy of these statements will be clear after a review of, say, Young’s Analytical Concordance, and a careful reading of every form of the word sadaq listed there:

Gen 38:26, 44:16, Ex 23:7, Deu 25:1, 2 Sa 15:4, 1 Ki 8:32, 2 Ch 6:23, Job 4:17, 9:2, 9:15, 9:20, 10:15, 11:2, 13:18, 15:14, 22:3, 25:4, 27:5, 32:2, 33:12, 33:32, 34:5, 35:7, 40:8, Ps 19:9, 51:4, 82:3, 143:2, Prov 17:15, Isa 5:23, 43:9, 43:26, 45:25, 50:8, 53:11, Jer 3:11, Ezk 16:51, 16:52 (twice), Da 12:3.

Notice that every form of the word applies to persons only; never to things. We therefore have a mystery. How can a sanctuary be justified or made righteous? The Interpreter’s Bible and other Bible commentaries are rightfully puzzled over the word meaning here. Many ignore the problem by giving nisdaq a meaning based on what they think Daniel 8:14 says. Many Hebrew dictionaries do the same. This is not honest. Words such as "restored" and "cleansed" are interpretive read-ins and do not belong in the text. The facts are clear. "The Hebrew word sadaq is used here, for which no variant reading is given in any Hebrew Bible" (Problems in Bible Translation, p. 175). The word means "be justified" or "be made righteous."

OUR RESOLUTION OF THE MYSTERY
Two texts in the OT demonstrate that the people of God were considered as a sanctuary. [Clearly, only this symbolism satisfies the demands of the text]. We now exhibit Biblical precedence for this abstract representation, Ps 78:67,68; 114:1,2: 

"He also rejected the tent of Joseph, and did not choose the tribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion which He loved." (Recall that Ex 15:17 calls Mt Zion the sanctuary). "When Israel went forth from Egypt, The house of Jacob from a people of strange language, Judah became His sanctuary, Israel, His dominion."

Therefore, if we keep within the full range of meanings for sadaq, and if we accept the eschatological nature of 8:13,14, then the only possible meaning is that sadaq here means ‘be made righteous’ and the sanctuary of these verses, as in Ps 114:2, must represent the people of God! The change of terminology therefore, from miqdash (sanctuary) in 8:11 to qodesh (sanctuary) in 8:13,14 is significant. And with the stated identification, observe the harmony and smoothness of the contextual flow in verses 10-14 and notice the resulting chiastic structure:

H = host = mighty men.
S = stars = sanctuary = holy people.

Clearly, Daniel 8:14 is parallel to the vindication of the saints in Daniel 7:22,27. We see here that Daniel 7 & 8 unfolds the future from two different perspectives. Daniel 7 describes Gentile believers. Daniel 8 describes the Jews.

The theme of God’s people being purified by judgment is fundamental in Scripture and is the basic idea in eschatology (Isa 3:13—4:6, Jer 30:11, Ezk 6:8-10, 20:33-38, Zeph 3:1-13, Zech 13:8,9, Mal 3:1-6, Mic 7:9-10). Eschatologies which we have classified as variations to plan A are no exception. The one most similar to the scenario presented here is the variation in Daniel 11-12:

The setting is persecution, imposed idolatrous worship, and apostasy. Scripture says,

"But the people who know their God will display strength and take action. And those who have insight among the people will give understanding to the many; yet they will fall by sword and by flame, by captivity and by plunder, for many days. Now when they fall they will be granted a little help, and many who are not sincere will join with them. Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time" (11:32-35 cf. 12:10). This purification should remind us of Revelation 7:13-14, 14:1-5, 19:7-8.

THE OUTCOME
"Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these (who are found written in the book) to everlasting life, but the others (the vast rebellious host) to disgrace and everlasting contempt. And those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever" (12:2,3).

The phrase, "everyone who is found written in the book" (12:1) is an interesting parallel. No wonder scholars such as Gaston, Feuillet, Gartner, Lacoque and others would paraphrase "Then shall the sanctuary be cleansed" as "then shall the holy community be declared righteous by the judgment of God."

THE N.T. SANCTUARY
The symbolic usage of a sanctuary to denote the people of God became common-place in the NT and was then applied to the Christian church (1 Cor 3:16,17, 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:19-22). Related imagery also became abundant: In contrast with God’s people represented as a temple of the Holy Spirit, the book of Revelation refers to blasphemous Jews as the synagogue of the Unholy Spirit (Rev 2:9). The Revelation then goes on to develop an elaborate contrast between the wicked and the righteous. As we will later prove, God’s people/church is identified with the New Jerusalem (Rev 2:9; 21:9,10); the wicked/counterfeit religious system with the ancient city Babylon. Jesus calls the people "Jerusalem" in Luke 13:34 and referred to Himself as the temple in John 2:19-21.

That Jesus understood Daniel and made repeated references to it naturally accounts for the heavy N.T. emphasis. This single explosion in abstract terminology did not develop within a vacuum. Our thesis accounts for it. We now restate this thesis precisely:

Daniel employs two different words that mean sanctuary. Whenever the word qodesh for sanctuary is used (8:13,14; 9:26), the text then makes far greater sense if the Jewish people are in view. Thus, according to our hermeneutic, context demands that this purer form of the word sanctuary, as in Ps 114:2, is a symbol of the people of God. Similarly, miqdash, the other word that means sanctuary (8:11; 9:17; 11:31), can only refer to the building.

Wm. Shea has objected violently to this thesis. He has remarked that this distinction between miqdash and qodesh is bad Hebrew because there is no linguistic basis or precedence for such a distinction in the use of these words in the Biblical Hebrew of the OT. I answer as follows:

When the NT refers to a sanctuary, whether a building or a person, it can be understood from context alone. The same is true in Daniel. In each case we can determine from the context alone if the people or literal building is meant. Coincidently, qodesh always refers to people and miqdash always refers to the building. It’s as simple as that.

The facts are that Shea himself makes a false distinction between the sanctuaries in Daniel. He claims that the sanctuary in 9:26 is the earthly one; in 8:13, the one in heaven (same word). So Shea is really objecting to the harmony of our thesis, a thesis we continue to confirm as we progress in the book.

More On Nisdaq

The OT knows four different forms of the Hebrew root word sadaq. Nisdaq is the passive form. We have seen that the entire range of meanings of all the forms is rather narrow in scope. In all 40 cases, we have found that the variations only refer to people, never things. Even the 482 nominal forms of the word (which are mostly nouns) never refer to objects but to concepts like, truth, justice, righteousness, and godliness. (See the respected Hebrew dictionaries like, Holladay or Brown, Driver and Briggs). Thus, the claim of the SDA Bible Commentary (that the uniqueness of the form of sadaq in Dan 8:14 may suggest that a specialized meaning of the term is indicated and that in this case the term may refer to objects) is simply wishful thinking for something of almost infinitesimal probability.

So you might be wondering: How are words other than nisdaq justified by translators in Daniel 8:14? Well — they start with the statement that "will be justified" or the like "can hardly be said of the sanctuary." They then try to find a word as close as possible to the original word, but one that applies to a building.

For example, Gerhard Hasel (The Sanctuary And The Atonement, p. 204) argues from Hebrew parallelism in the book of Job that ‘just’ is synonymous with ‘clean’ and thus "purified/cleansed" is the correct rendering of ‘nisdaq.’ [This is like saying that the word ‘lips’ is synonymous with the word ‘mouth’ because they are paired together by Hebrew parallelism in Job 15:6]. This argument is clearly false! The words ‘just’ and ‘clean’ are only synonymous in a limited range of meaning of the word ‘clean,’ — a range that is restricted to describing persons that are just!

"Can mankind be just before God? Can a man be pure before his Maker" (4:17). "What is man, that he should be pure, or he who is born of a woman, that he should be righteous" (15:14). "How then can a man be just with God? Or how can he be clean who is born of woman?" (25:4). "Nevertheless the righteous shall hold to his way, and he who has clean hands shall grow stronger and stronger" (17:9).

Exercise: Find all the words which are paired together by Hebrew parallelism in the Psalms and in Job and note which are counterexamples to the fallacious argument just mentioned in the Sanctuary and Atonement book. Send these to the Biblical Research Institute, 12501 Old Columbia Pike, Silver Spring, MD 20904-6600.

The Interpreter’s Bible expresses their own frustration over Daniel 8:14 in this way: "Be restored: Lit., ‘be justified.’ If we hold to the M.T., the meaning is that so long as the temple continued polluted it lay under condemnation, but when cleansed and restored, would justify itself for use again as a place where sacrifices could be offered. The Hebrew of this passage, however, is hardly tolerable, and the Greek indicates that the translators understood it to mean ‘cleansed.’"

This comment should be followed by an important question: How good of a translation is the Septuagint? That is, was this translation faithful in respecting the exact meaning of the Hebrew or did the translators, at times, interpret rather than translate the original text? The evidence forcefully suggests that the LXX has amended the Hebrew to bolster an understanding of the day: that Antiochus Epiphanes fulfilled Daniel’s prophecy.

For example: The Masoretic Text translates Da 11:30 as "ships of Kittim shall come against him" but the Septuagint (LXX) and the easy reading Today’s English Version renders the same phrase as, "the Romans will come..."(Ford, Daniel, p. 269). (This, we will see, has Antiochus in mind). This strongly suggests that the word "cleansed" in 8:14 is also an interpretive translation. To prove this, I repeat an argument due to Raymond Cottrell: 

It should be remembered that the LXX, the Bible of the Jews of the Diaspora, included the Book of Maccabees. And it is evident beyond question that the Book of Maccabees identifies Antiochus Epiphanes as fulfilling Daniel’s prophecy. 1 Maccabees 1 to 4 says much about the Antiochus Epiphanes desecration of the Temple (168-165 BC) and its subsequent ritual purification (i.e. cleansing), rededication, and restoration of its services. Since it is easy to see how the desecration of the sanctuary and its cleansing would be identified to Daniel 8:9-14, it is then just as easy to see why the LXX translators would have interpreted nisdaq as ‘cleansed.’ They had no choice. They were the historicists of the day! In other words, since the temple was "cleansed" of its defilement and since this act was thought to be a fulfillment of prophecy, then nisdaq, no matter what it really meant, had to be thought of as meaning "cleansed." Since the translators have specially crafted the LXX elsewhere to make a dramatic event in the life of Antiochus Epiphanes stand out in greater clarity (Da 11:30), then to clear up the most important event (the sanctuary being made righteous), they would have certainly supplied an interpretive translation to Da 8:14 based on what really happened. And the sanctuary was ‘cleansed.’

R. Cottrell summarizes the point: "The KJV translation ‘cleansed’ has no basis, either in the Hebrew word nisdaq or in its usage throughout Jewish literature. The word is never used in this sense. The KJV translation ‘cleansed’ reflects the Vulgate mundabitur and the LXX katharisthesetai, on which it was evidently based. The LXX at this point interpreted rather than translated the Hebrew nisdaq."

15 When I, Daniel, had seen the vision, I sought to understand it; and behold, there stood before me one having the appearance of a man. 16 And I heard a man’s voice between the banks of the Ulai, and it called, "Gabriel, make this man understand the vision."

Perhaps it was the Lord who gave this divine commission to make the prophet understand (Ps 29:3). If so, the command of God must be fulfilled. 

17 So he came near where I stood; and when he came, I was frightened and fell upon my face. But he said to me, "Understand, O son of man, that the vision is for [or points to] the time of the end." 

The time of the end refers to the final end of world history (Da 7). The audition gave us that time: the terminus of the 2300 days. The N.E.B. implies that the vision points to or reaches this time; the R.S.V., that the vision was to be understood then. See Da 12:4,9.

18 As he was speaking to me, I fell into a deep sleep with my face to the ground: but he touched me and set me on my feet. 19 He said, "Behold, I will make known to you what shall be at the latter end of the indignation, for it pertains to the appointed time of the end."

Notice that the text draws a distinction between "the time of the end" and "the appointed time of the end." Similarly, there is a marked contrast between the vision of the evenings-mornings, the audition, to which 8:26 refers, and what Daniel saw in the vision.

The heavenly messenger said, "Behold, I will make known to you what shall be at the latter end of the indignation, for it pertains to the appointed time of the end." He then explained the vision proper (8:2-12), the climax of which is the terrible work of the little horn. This tells us that the indignation refers to a long period of time and that the latter end of it is a specific point in historical time: It is the time of the tyrant king. This is in perfect agreement with verse 13. It told us that the entire vision is about rebellion that brings desolation.

The indignation: 

Whenever the nation of Israel would sin, the covenant curses would be poured out on them. "Those whom God loves, he reproves and chastens" (Rev 3:19). This has been the history of the Jewish nation. But when the Jews rejected Christ, God’s merciful discipline ended. — He gave up on that nation as the special object of His concern. He chose another people.

The time in history when the little horn would destroy the city of Jerusalem and oppose the Prince of princes is the appointed time of the end. It is further explained by the angel in Daniel 9. We will then discover that this was a time especially appointed by God for the establishment of the Messianic kingdom and the consummation of all things. And if the people had only responded favorably to Christ, God’s kingdom would have come! 

26 "And the vision of the evenings-mornings which has been told is true; but keep the vision secret, for it points to days far ahead." N.E.B.

This refers to the special revelation of Daniel 8:13-14. An interesting fact with powerful implications is that nothing else in Daniel is given this much secrecy. We may conclude immediately therefore that the nature of the revelation is quite unusual and the information concealed — of extreme importance. Why else would it be singled out to be kept secret? Equal status can only be given to the comparative "seven thunders" of Revelation:

"Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven. He was robed in a cloud, with a rainbow above his head; his face was like the sun, and his legs were like fiery pillars. He was holding a little scroll, which lay open in his hand. He planted his right foot on the sea and his left foot on the land, and he gave a loud shout like the roar of a lion. When he shouted, the voices of the seven thunders spoke. And when the seven thunders spoke, I was about to write; but I heard a voice from heaven say, ‘Seal up what the seven thunders have said and do not write it down’ " (Rev 10:1-4).

We have shown here that the most hidden secrets of God are at times revealed exclusively for His prophets. John was told not to write down what he had heard; Daniel was told to keep his secret concealed. And for centuries, the true meaning of Daniel’s revelation was hidden, concealed by the use of rare symbols. The sanctuary standing for people occurs only once in all the OT (Ps 114:2). In addition, there is no day/year principle, nor is there a single precedent in OT prophecy for days to stand for years, but days, we have seen, can mean years. Even the unique Hebrew phrase "evening mornings" suggests the preterist interpretation of 2300 morning and evening sacrifices, i.e., 1150 literal days and that the literal temple was to be restored after this time. Thus, at first glance, Daniel 8:13-14 appears to be a reference about the sanctuary building and its restoration taking place not long after its casting down by the little horn. And it may be translated this way. However, there are many unresolvable problems with this: 

First: Such a translation of the Hebrew text (like the NASB rendering) is not the best. It tries to limit ‘the vision question’ of 8:13 exclusively to an interval of desolation. This ignores the fact that a long rebellion precedes the time of desolation and that linguistics demand that the angel’s question of: How long? includes this period of rebellion.

Second: According to the preterist line of thinking, all rightly compute the restoration of the temple taking place before the end of the period of tribulation. The specific contradiction is this: In the preterist mind, the sanctuary and host are given over to be trampled for 1150 days according to 8:13 but for 1260 days according to 7:25. Some commentators over-simplify the problem by claiming that Daniel only refers to round even numbers, this in spite of the fact that 1290 (12:11) is not very round and that 1335 (12:12) is hardly even! Even so, if Daniel’s intent in 8:13-14 was to count the number of sacrifices suspended, why did he not approximate the 1260 by 2500 half-days?

Third: It fails to account for the secretiveness expressed and it ignores the larger contextual meaning of the prophecy: In the light of Daniel’s expectation, the question: "How long till the end?" is far more appropriate than simply: "How long will the sacrifices be suspended?" That the vision declared a possible delay to the soon to be established Messianic kingdom certainly outweighs an insignificant detail about the distant future: That the temple would be profaned and the sanctuary services suspended, thus necessitating restoration and ritual purification to be conducted exactly 2300 or 1150 literal days after defilement, all this after the atoning death of the Anointed One (Da 9), is hardly a mystery or secret to keep hidden. It is Nonsense!

Fourth: Only our interpretation, the purification of God’s people occurring at the terminus of 2300 day/years, fits the secrecy. The end of the world was always expressed by the prophets as being imminent.

The conclusion of all this is that the terminology employed in Daniel 8:13-14 conveys an intent to mask a hidden meaning with the ever popular Antiochus interpretation.

27 And I, Daniel, was overcome and lay sick for some days; then I rose and went about the king’s business; but I was appalled by the vision and did not understand it. 

This verse should present great difficulty for most exegetes. The problem is this: Daniel, whom God had given a mastery and skill in all learning, great wisdom, and the special ability to understand the meaning of all visions and dreams (1:17), understood the dreams of chapters 2 & 7 yet this vision which is explained so fully presents a mystery to the prophet. He should have understood it! Joseph had the same gift of understanding dreams and visions and look at the complexity of the dreams he could explain: Genesis 40:1—41:49. Is this an embarrassment for Daniel? Joseph didn’t even need the aid of an angel interpreter.

One reason Daniel failed to understand the vision is that it seemed to conflict with his earlier revelations of the future. There appears to be an obvious discrepancy concerning the number of world kingdoms that must arise till the end of the age. The prophet was appalled by the vision. It must have been the extreme intensity of the wrath directed against his people — he had no sense of the purpose of that; but he certainly did not understand the relationship between this vision and the dreams of chapters 2 and 7. Recall Dan 8:15,16. Our expectation that Gabriel must return to the prophet at a later time in order to complete the explanation of the vision is confirmed in the next chapter.

The Author | The Seven Faces of Seventh-day Adventism | Christian Court

Have a question or comment?
Follow it up in our Discussion Forum.