Daniel Chapter 8 - Transcription of Video Eight

Part Two of the Vision (cont.)

In the next sentence there is a change of gender, meaning that it is the beginning of the second part of the chiasm, following the pattern set down by the first chiasm. This change of gender represents a change of focus, away from the horn to the man that came out of her. This act of coming out of the horn, which means the man becomes king of the kingdom, is the central story of this part of the vision. Due to this story’s importance, it is no wonder that this part of the chiasm is in itself a chiasm. It is structured as follows:

1. And until the prince of the host he expanded.		1. ועד שר-הצבא הגדיל
	2. And from him, he lifted away the continual.	2. וממנו הרים התמיד
	3. And the place of preparation of his sanctuary will be cast down.	3. והשלך מכון מקדשו
4. And a host she will be given upon the continual by transgression.		4. וצבא תנתן על-התמיד בפשע

This chiasm has a total of four parts. The first pairs with the fourth, and the second with third. What dictates the structure of this chiasm are the verbs. In the first two parts, the verbs are active and are in the past tense, whereas in the last two parts the verbs are passive and are in the future tense. One may think that the fourth part of this chiasm does not belong here since the verb used is feminine not masculine, meaning that it is speaking of the horn not of the man. Whilst this is true, since the verb is passive, this means that something is happening to the horn rather than the horn actually doing something. What is happening to the horn is giving additional information about the man, so the fourth part does indeed belong to this chiasm. In addition Daniel did leave a clue at the beginning of the next part of the chiasm to show that that indeed is its beginning.

Before I discuss an interpretation of this chiasm I should mention a couple of translation issues. The second part of the chiasm I have translated as, “And from him, he lifted away the continual.” Other translations translate it as, “And from him, the daily sacrifice was lifted away…” The Hebrew word tamid means “continual”, “always”, or “daily”, so the word hatamid, which is what Daniel actually wrote, I have translated as “the continual”. Other translations assume that when Daniel wrote hatamid, what he was meaning was olat hatamid, which means “the daily sacrifice”. Making this assumption also means that the verb of the sentence must be changed from active to passive. Instead of translating the verb as “he lifted away…” as I have done since this is what Daniel actually wrote, other translations translate the verb as, “was lifted away…” In short, other translations are imposing an interpretation on Daniel’s words, rather than letting what Daniel actually wrote speak for itself.

This chiasm details what takes place between two characters, the man who comes out of the horn, and another called the “prince of the host”. That he is a prince or leader of a host suggests he has a certain amount of power. The first part of the chiasm states that the man expands until the prince of the host, meaning this man’s power increases so that it is like the power of the prince of the host.

The fourth part of the chiasm, the pair of the first part, gives additional information concerning this event, specifically how this man grows in power. “And a host she will be given…” She, that is the horn from whom the man comes out of, is given a host. In short, the man’s power increases to that of the prince of the host because he becomes like him.

The fourth part of the chiasm also states that this act of the horn being given a host is an illegal act, it happened by transgression, and this illegal act occurred upon the continual. This reveals what the continual in fact is. What determines if an act is illegal or not? Answer - a code of law. This is what the continual is. The act of giving a host to the horn was done upon the continual, that is to say, above it or without regard for it.

Having become powerful like the prince of the host, the man then moves against him. The second part of the chiasm states that from him, that is, from the prince of the host, he, the man who comes out of the horn, lifted away the continual, that is the code of law. This reveals that up until this time the continual, the code of law, has been in possession of the prince of the host. The code of law gave the prince of the host the right to be a leader, so by the lifting away of the continual, the man who comes out of the horn overthrows the prince of the host.

The third part of the chiasm gives more information about this overthrow of the prince of the host. “The place of preparation of his sanctuary will be cast down”. The Hebrew word makhon is often translated as “place” in other translations. A makhon is indeed a place, but a specific type of place, a place where preparation is carried out. In Modern Hebrew makhon is used when referring to an institute a place of higher learning. The basic meaning of the Hebrew root qaf, dalet, shin is “set aside”, therefore a miqdash which comes from this root is a set aside place. I have translated miqdash as “sanctuary”, as do most translations, but it should not assumed that what is meant here is a place set aside for God in heaven, as the basic meaning of this root does not imply it.

So putting this altogether, the prince of the host has a place set aside for some purpose, that is in a state of preparation, and this place is cast down by the man who comes out of the horn. This has the effect of lifting away the continual, the code of law, and overthrowing the prince of the host. What this means, is that this set aside place must somehow be connected to the continual. The language used in the chiasm also implies this. In the second part the continual is lifted away – an upward movement. In the third part, the pair of the second, the opposite occurs, the sanctuary is cast down – a downward movement.

Given that this second chiasm is patterned after the first, it seems that this overthrow of the prince of the host by the man, is showing how the man comes out of the horn, meaning how he becomes king of the kingdom. This leads to a couple of questions. First, what is the nature of the overthrow? Without knowing the identity of the hosts involved, the one belonging to the prince and the one given to the horn, it is impossible to say. Perhaps one or both of the hosts are an army, a military force, meaning this overthrow is a military coup. Unfortunately I cannot see that Daniel gave any clue in this chiasm as to the identity of either of the hosts. Second, in order to become king, wouldn’t the man have to overthrow the current king of the kingdom, rather than the prince of the host? Well not if the kingdom doesn’t have a king at the time. This could be because either the prince of the host had been appointed king but had yet to take up the position, or it is not the practice of the kingdom to have a king. By this I mean that the power of this kingdom’s dominant kingship is not vested in only one person, rather in a group of people. Perhaps the prince and his host were the group that had the power of the kingship, therefore for the man to become king meant having to overthrow this group.