Daniel Chapter 8 - Transcription of Video Ten

Part Three of the Vision

The third and last part of the vision consists of only one chiasm. It is structured as follows:

1. And I heard a holy one speaking.			1. ואשמעה אחד-קדוש מדבר
	2. And a holy one said to somebody that is speaking. "Until when is the vision of the continual and the transgression that makes desolate, giving holy and host from trampling under foot."		2. ויאמר אחד קדוש לפלמוני המדבר עד-מתי החזון התמיד והפשע שמם--תת וקדש וצבא מרמס
		3. And he said to me, "Until evening, morning, two thousand and three hundred, and the holy will be justified."	3. ויאמר אלי--עד ערב בקר אלפים ושלש מאות ונצדק קדש
		4. And it was with my seeing, I Daniel, the vision, that I requested understanding.	4. ויהי בראתי אני דניאל--את-החזון ואבקשה בינה
	5. And behold, standing opposite me, like the sight of a strong man.		5. והנה עמד לנגדי כמראה-גבר
6. And I heard a voice of a man between the Ulai.			6. ואשמע קול אדם בין אולי

In this part of the vision, instead of always using the regular form of verbs, Daniel began using the poetic form where he could. In first part of the chiasm, instead of writing va'eshma' meaning “and I heard”, he wrote va'eshme'ah. Likewise in fourth part of the chiasm he wrote va'avaksah instead va'avakesh, both meaning “and I requested”. The exception is in the sixth part of the chiasm, instead of using poetic form of “and I heard”, va'eshme'ah, he used the regular form va'eshma'. This indicates that the first and the sixth parts are meant to form pair, that they are the beginning and the end of the chiasm. Knowing this, the rest of the parts of the chiasm can be identified simply by the subject at hand. I won’t go into any more detail, since I don’t believe this chiasm is giving across any information beyond the plain meaning of the text. The use of the chiasm here is simply in keeping with the style of the account as a whole.

“And I heard a holy one speaking.” The real Daniel, not the Daniel of the vision, is hearing a holy one speaking. I am not sure what Daniel meant by a “holy one”, but that he identified the speaker in some way, indicates that he was actually seeing in the vision who was speaking. The basic meaning of the word “holy” is “set aside for some purpose” and this purpose need not be for God in heaven. Up until now, the only mention of anything holy has been the sanctuary, the set aside place, of the prince of the host. Perhaps the one speaking is somehow associated with this place.

In the second part of the chiasm, this holy one asks another that is already speaking, an all-important question, “Until when is the vision of the continual and the transgression that makes desolate, giving holy and host from trampling under foot”. The term, “the continual” was used by Daniel, in his account of the second part of the vision, which I interpreted as being a code of law, but the term “the transgression that makes desolate”, is new.

At this point in time, I can only speculate as to what this transgression is exactly. Daniel did use the word transgression in connection with the continual, when the horn was given a host thereby empowering the man, so he became like the prince of the host. This was the first of the man’s activities. This transgression that makes desolate seems to be associated with his second act, the overthrowing of the prince of the host, since this transgression involves trampling under foot. Should it be understood that this transgression leads to both holy and host being trampled under foot? It really depends how the preposition “from” in the phrase “from trampling under foot” is understood.

To review some Hebrew grammar. The Hebrew preposition min can be translated as either “from” or “of” depending on the context. This preposition also has an abbreviated form. Looking at how Daniel has used this preposition in other places in this account, it seems that when he used the longer form of min he meant “from”, but when he used the abbreviated form he meant “of”. In the phrase “from trampling under foot”, the abbreviated form is used, so the question asked by the holy one should be reworded as “Until when is the vision of the continual and the transgression that makes desolate, giving holy and host of trampling under foot.” This means that the transgression that makes desolate doesn’t lead to holy and host being trampled under foot, rather holy and host are the ones doing the trampling. To whom or what is not made clear.

As for the identity of the holy and the host, again I can only speculate. As mentioned previously, the only thing holy that has been encountered in this vision is the sanctuary of the prince of the host. When he is overthrown this sanctuary is cast down. Perhaps after this, the sanctuary becomes a tool of oppression. As for the host, this could be either the host given to the horn, or the host of the prince or even both.

So what is the meaning of the question that the holy one asked? Essentially he was asking how long this oppression caused by the overthrow of the prince of the host by the man will last. The answer to this question is given in the next part of the chiasm. One of the holy ones said to Daniel, “Until evening, morning, two thousand and three hundred, and the holy will be justified." Just as the period of time begins with the overthrow of the prince of the host and subsequent casting down of the sanctuary, it ends with the holy, the sanctuary, being “justified”. That he was told “until” means he wasn’t given an exact answer, rather the maximum length of time that these events could last.

As for the length of time, Daniel was given a cryptic answer. It is certainly tempting to think of this answer in terms of days, with evening morning two thousand three hundred equating to either one thousand one hundred and fifty days, with two thousand three hundred being the sum total of evenings and mornings, or to two thousand three hundred days, giving two thousand three hundred evenings and two thousand three hundred mornings. I doubt that the correct interpretation is this simple. Why bother giving a cryptic answer at all if it can be interpreted so easily? I do have an idea of what it could mean, though since I am not one hundred percent sure at this stage, I would rather not say.

With this answer the vision came to a stand still, and Daniel immediately asked for understanding, that is, an interpretation of the vision. That this is the real Daniel is emphasized by the phrase “I Daniel”. His request is granted for he received a visitation from someone that had the appearance of a strong man. This visitation is not a vision. It is real. The vision though is still there, because in the sixth and last part of the chiasm the real Daniel then hears a voice speaking in the vision. Daniel identified the voice as belonging to a man. I don’t believe this means that it was the voice of a male. The word man in this vision has a special meaning. I will discuss this more in detail in the next section.