An Expository Reading Guide To Daniel 8

An Expository Reading Guide to Daniel 8
2016
Loren Lineberry,
Introduction
The purpose of the Guide is to help both the specialist and the non-specialist read Daniel
8 more closely. For the specialist, by whom I mean those with some skill in Hebrew and
Aramaic, the Guide is intended to enrich the reading of the text. For the non-specialist, by whom
I mean those with no acquaintance with Hebrew or Aramaic, the Guide intends to offer the
benefits of a close reading of the text in language that is, hopefully, clear and accurate.
For both the specialist and the non-specialist, the Guide is especially intended for the
preacher. It is hoped that the Guide will augment whatever helps the preacher already has at his
or her disposal for expository preaching of the text. The Guide is especially geared for those
preachers, teachers, and home Bible study leaders who crave exposition of the text of Daniel 8.
The grammatical analysis of the text will provide identifications of key terms and
constructions: prepositional phrases, genitive constructions, verbal parsing, subordinating
conjunctions, and other terms and forms as they arise. While not every form will be parsed, it is
hoped that those that are chosen will aid in reading the text in an informed manner.
The syntactical matters addressed in the Guide are among the Guides more important
benefits. This is on three levels.
First, there is the matter of the syntax in the sense of how the text fits together. This is the
more or less traditional task of syntactical study and it is offered in the Guide. To this end, each
paragraph or unit of text will be laid out in terms of the paragraph sense. This is a schematic of
how the text fits together. It is intended to aid in the expository preaching of the text of Daniel by
unpacking the sense of the context. Moreover, syntactical outlines will be provided for each
paragraph.
Second, there is the matter of the syntactical-semantic thrust of the various stems in
Hebrew and Aramaic. To make an extremely complicated matter simple is beyond the scope of
the Guide; at the same time, the seven major stems signal nuances of transivity, causation, and
reflexive or reciprocal relationships between the subject and the action or situation depicted in the
verb. These nuances are often quite useful in understanding what a sentence is about.
Accordingly, one of the significant uses of the Guide for the reader is this appreciation of verbal
stems.
Third, there is the matter of paragraph identification and punctuation. While the Guide
is fully aware that the punctuation and paragraph markings in the Masoretic text are not inspired,
they are useful in demarcating the larger paragraph units and the sentences that make up the
paragraphs.
The lexical section will offer word studies for the more important terms in a sentence.
This feature of the Guide is intended to be of particular use to the non-specialist, who may not
have access to lexical tools. To be sure, the preacher who would seek to deliver an expository
sermon from a paragraph unit in Daniel 8 would do well to know what the key terms mean. To
this end, the Guide makes available entries from the standard lexicons: Brown-Driver-Briggs,
Kohler-Baumgartner, Holladay, the Concise Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, The Theological
Lexicon of the Old Testament and entries from The New International Dictionary of Old
Testament Theology and Exegesis as well as the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament.

2016
Loren Lineberry,
The paragraph sense, as noted above, will aid the reader in grasping the context for each
individual utterance. This is another major effort of the Guide, since a word or a verse derives
meaning from the immediate context in which it is found, the paragraph. As far as the preaching
of the text goes, the paragraph sense is intended to help the preacher avoid taking a sentence out
of context. Moreover, summaries are offered at the end of most verses.
The genre of the various units of the Daniel 8 will be considered. The paragraph units
will be identified in terms of genre, which, in turn, helps the reader know what to expect contentwise from the paragraph. For example, it is useful to know that a paragraph contains history as
opposed to, say, prophecy. In either case, the rules of the reading game differ; we expect to hear
different kinds of messages from different genres.
Table of contents
Introduction
Table of contents
General introduction to Daniel 8
1-2
2
3-4
I.
An introduction to a vision [Dan 8:1-2]
5-9
II.
A vision report of a ram and a he-goat [Dan 8:3-14]

A.
The vision of the ram [Dan 8:3-4]
B.
The vision of the he-goat [Dan 8:5-12]
C.
Daniel overhears an angelic conversation [Dan 8:13-14]
9-62
9-16
17-51
52-62
III.
A divine interpreter steps forward to grant Daniel understanding [Dan 8:15-19]

A.
Daniels confusion regarding the vision [Dan 8:15]
B.
An interpreter is enlisted to give Daniel understanding [Dan 8:16-17]
C.
Daniels response [Dan 8:18-19]
63-75
63-67
67-71
71-75
IV.
The interpretation of the vision [Dan 8:20-26]

A.
The ram [Dan 8:20]
B.
The he-goat [Dan 8:21]
C.
The four horns [Dan 8:22]
D.
The small horn [Dan 8:23-25]
E.
The interpreters final word [Dan 8:26]
75-103
75-77
77
78
78-101
101-03
V.
Daniels reaction [Dan 8:27]
103-06

2016
Loren Lineberry,
General introduction to Daniel 8

Genre
The concept of genre recognition is crucial to reading Daniel, or any biblical book for
that matter. John Barton puts the importance of genre this way: It is not too much to say that it
is impossible to understand any text without at least an implicit recognition of the genre to which
it belongs.1
Most seasoned readers of the Bible do this more or less intuitively. That is, we instinctively know
that reading a wisdom book differs from reading a psalm differs from reading the prophets and
differs from reading the Pentateuch. This differentiation comes down to different expectations,
different kinds of information that is presented in different kinds of ways in each of the above
genres.
So, with all of that, to what genre does Daniel 8 belong? John Collins writes that Daniel 8
is an example of the symbolic dream vision.2 As a symbolic dream vision, Daniel 8 is a mode
of revelation, lifting the veil on some future event(s) and providing a sense of hope that these
events are under divine control.
Furthermore, Collins notes that there is a more or less stable structure to the typical symbolic
dream vision:3
Indication of circumstances [Dan 8:1-2]
Description of the vision, introduced by behold [Dan 8:3-14]
Request for interpretation [Dan 8:15-19]
Interpretation [Dan 8:20-26]
Concluding material [Dan 8:27]
Finally, reader should take careful note of the word symbolic in the genre. This tells us
that much, if not most, of the language we shall encounter in Daniel 8 will be of the non-literal
variety. This, in turn, means that the reader must not jump to conclusions based upon literal
readings of these symbolic words. Rather, the reader will accept the fact that truth can be
communicated in symbolic language, but the nature of the symbolism demands caution and no
small degree of humility when it is interpreted.
Structure
The structure of Daniel 8 signals progression. As the outline provided above shows, the
vision moves through various stages and ultimately arrives at the crucial point, the interpretation
of the small horn in Dan 8:23-25. The reader may infer that the horrifying nature of the events
in Dan 8:23-25 is offset by the ever so gentle hint that Yahweh has the final say [Dan 8:25b].
1 John Barton, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study (Louisville: Westminster
John Knox Press, 1996; reprint edition), 16.
2 Rolf Knierim and Eugene Tucker, ed., The Forms of Old Testament Literature, vol. XX, Daniel
with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 6 [hereafter
abbreviated FOTL].
3 Ibid., 86.
3

2016
Loren Lineberry,
Daniel 8 in the context of the book

It will be useful for the reader to appreciate the place of Daniel 8 in the structure of the
book as a whole. To this end, Joyce Baldwin provides, with some additions, an excellent
summary:4
Daniel 2
Gold
Silver
Bronze
Iron/clay
Daniel 7
Lion
Bear
Leopard
Horns of terror
Daniel 8
Interpretation in Daniel 8
(Babylon, presumably)
Ram
Medo-Persian
He-goat
Greece (key to vision in Dan 11)
(Rome, presumably)
As the reader can see, the four components of the statue in Nebuchadnezzars dream in
Daniel 2 are resumed and expanded in Daniel 7 into four beasts. Then, in Daniel 8, only two of
the beasts are re-interpreted; these two, in turn, are identified by a heavenly spokesperson as
Medo-Persia and Greece, respectively [Dan 8:20-21]. Ultimately, only the Grecian identity is
elaborated in Daniel 10-12, especially Dan 11:20-12:1.
The chart helps us appreciate the place of Daniel 8 in the trajectory of Daniel as a whole.
The reader can see that from the beginning the path of Daniel tends toward the Persian-Greek
regimes as prime exemplars of totalitarian states throughout history. But, more to the point of the
book of Daniel as a whole and Daniel 8 in particular, the reader will understand that this arc
running through Daniel moves by Yahwehs oversight and control. To put the same thing another
way, the major player in Daniel is God, not the rogue nations that appear only to disfigure human
history. Thus, we seriously misread Daniel if look for identification of regimes in history and
miss the work of God in history.
4 D.J. Wiseman, ed., Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, Daniel by Joyce Baldwin (Downers
Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1978), 161.
4

2016
Loren Lineberry,
Text and translation

I.
An introduction to a vision [Dan 8:1-2]
8:1a
In the third year of the
reign of Belshazzar the
king;

8:1b a vision appeared to me,
I, Daniel,

after the one that appeared to
me previously.

8:2a
That is, I looked in the vision,

and while I was looking,

I in Susa the citadel,

which in Elam the province;

8:2b so, I looked in the vision,

and I was beside the
river Ulai.
Syntactical outline
8:1b
A vision appeared to me, (appositional item) I Daniel

8:1a (temporal marker) in the third year of the reign of Belshazzar the king
(temporal marker) after the one that appeared to me previously (Daniel 7)
8:2a
(specification) that is, I looked in the vision

(temporal specification) and while I was looking
(background information) I [was] in Susa the citadel
(clarification) which [is] in Elam the province
8:2b
(resumption) and so I looked in the vision

(background information) and I was beside the river Ulai
Paragraph sense
It is vital for the reader of the Bible not to become lost among the trees of exposition and
thereby lose sight of the forest; that is, it is one thing to give attention to words and even
sentences, but it is just as vital to keep the forest, the paragraph in mind. To this end, we offer the
paragraph sense of Dan 8:1-2, where the sense of the paragraph lies not merely in the
individual propositions but in the relationships of those propositions to each other. 5 With that in
mind, we may map out the paragraph sense of Dan 8:1-2
(i)[Opening truth claim] A vision appeared to me
(ii)
[When (i) occurred] in the third year of the reign of Belshazzar
(iii)
[When (i) and (ii) occurred] after the one that appeared to me previously
(iv)
[Specification of (i)] that is, I looked in the vision
(v)
[Temporal specification of (iv)] and while I was looking
(vi)
[Background information pertinent to (v)] I (was) in Susa the citadel
5 Peter Cotterell and Max Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 1989), 79.
5

2016
Loren Lineberry,
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
[Specification of (vi)] which (is) in Elam the province

[Resumption of (iv)] and so I looked in the vision
[Background to (viii) and I was beside the river Ulai
So, what does all of this tell us? The reader will note that vision figures prominently in
the paragraph; so, we may infer that there is something important being conveyed in this event,
vision. Moreover, the reader will observe the high level of temporal and background material;
accordingly, we need to be alert for crucial information here.
Theme of the paragraph
From the above, we may affirm that the theme of Daniel 8:1-2 is his vision, especially in
terms of the circumstances within which this vision occurs.
Genre of the paragraph
It seems that Dan 8:1-2 is a report that is a brief, self-contained prose narrative, usually
in third person style, about a single event or situation in the past. 6 Accordingly, the reader is
entitled to read this brief paragraph as containing the facts that surrounded Daniels vision.
Dan 8:1 In the third year of the reign of Belshazzar the king; a vision appeared to me, I, Daniel,
after the one that appeared to me previously.
Daniel appears to be intent on locating his vision historically, that is, in terms of his immediate
circumstances. Accordingly, Daniel locates his vision in time and in Daniels life.
In the third year of the reign of Belshazzar would date the vision about two years after the
vision in Dan 7:1, that is, about 550/549 BC.
The reign of Belshazzar is significant. R. Campbell Thompson tells us why: 7
Babylon was rapidly nearing her end. With continual internal
dissensions barely kept in check, it is a matter for wonder that
Nabonidus should have been able to retain his throne as long as
seventeen years. Obviously, he was not a young man at his
accession, for Belshazzar, his son, is mentioned on a contract of
the fifth year of Nabonidus, whereon he is called the son of the
king, and he may well have been, as has been computed, sixty
years old when he came to the throne.
Accordingly, this vision would have come at a very critical time for Belshazzars regime, and we
may assume that Daniel would have been well aware of Belshazzars shaky government. The
point is that this vision came at a time ready for a realignment of nations in the region, thus
adding to the trepidation associated with the circumstances surrounding the vision. Indeed, as we
shall see in the vision, the political climate in which Daniel and his friends work goes from bad to
worse, at least for the foreseeable future. These are among the facts that this report offers the
reader; these are also among the momentous details of historical background that flavor the
6 FOTL, Isaiah 1-39, vol. XVI by Marvin Sweeney, 536.
7 J.B. Bury, S.A. Cook, and F.E. Adcock, ed., The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. III The
Assyrian Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1929), 219 [hereafter abbreviated
CAH].
6

2016
Loren Lineberry,
vision.
A vision appeared to me [ ] is the key assertion in the
paragraph; the truth claim in this part of the report may be assumed.
Vision [ (a vision associated with a prophecy/revelation, a dream/vision in the
night, and the title of a prophetic book: revelatory word, inspired saying 8)] is a Hebrew noun that
appears more often in Daniel than any other book of the Hebrew Bible; indeed, no chapter in the
Hebrew Bible uses more than Daniel 8; therefore, we must get a handle on what the
noun means.
The noun comes from a semantic field of terms for perception.9 Two other terms
populate this semantic field: [in the Niphal stem: to make oneself known to someone; in
the Hiphil stem: to make something known to someone; and in the Hithpael: to make oneself
known to someone10] and [primarily in the Niphal stem: to appear in a divine revelation,
to be seen, to be visible; and also in the Hiphil stem: to cause to see, show, let see 11].
One difference is immediately apparent when we consider these three perception terms:
/vision is the one term that means that the emphasis in the revelatory vision was on
the revelation of the divine word, which endowed the prophet [emphasis mine] with special
knowledge of divine things.12 In other words, the /vision identifies Daniel as a
prophet in the lineage of Isaiah [Isaiah 1:1], Amos [Amos 1:1], Micah [Micah 1:1] and Habakkuk
[Habakkuk 1:1]. The significance of this observation is: for the foreseeable future, not only will
matters deteriorate politically, but also, God still has the prophetic office on the scene to impart a
revelatory word in the midst of the chaos.
The noun [] has two ranges of meaning: [1] a visionary revelation, (a) revealing
the content of future events, a goal that will not fail (b) of false visions/revelations, (c)
visions/revelations that are suspended, (d) visions as fulfilled, (e) as requiring explanation, (f) as
populated by heavenly beings, (g) as sealed by the recipient, (h) vision/revelation as tantamount
to a parable, and (i) as inscribed for future reading; [2] a word of revelation, in a book title. 13
The upshot is this: when Daniel affirms that a /vision appeared to him, we may
infer that [1] the recipient of this vision enjoys the status of a prophet, [2] the events depicted in
this revelatory word are certain to unfold as revealed, for [3] this vision is the product of heaven
[Dan 8:13].
8 David J.A. Clines, ed., The Concise Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Sheffield: Sheffield
Phoenix Press, 2009), 111 [hereafter abbreviated CDCH].
9 Willem VanGemeren, ed., The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and
Exegesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000; CD-ROM), Perception, [hereafter abbreviated
NIDOTTE].
10 CDCH, 147.
11 Ibid., 408.
12 Jackie A. Naud, , in NIDOTTE [H2600].
13 See Ludwig Kohler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old
Testament, revised by Walter Baumgartner and Johann Stamm; translated and edited by M.E.J.
Richardson, vol. I - (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 301-02 [hereafter abbreviated KB 1 for vol. 1, , and KB2 for vol. 2, -].
7

2016
Loren Lineberry,
I, Daniel is an example of the personal pronoun, /I, added in apposition to

appeared to me.14 The syntactical function of this apposition is for emphasis, 15 possibly, given
Daniels troubled reaction to this vision, Daniels humility. Perhaps Daniel realizes that he has
joined an elite assembly: the prophets. What is more, given the historical circumstances the
exile and the fact that Babylons days seemed to be numbered Daniel may be humbled to know
that he, as a prophet, has a niche in the unfolding of human history as revealed to him by the Lord
of history.
Dan 8:2 That is, I looked in the vision, and while I was looking, I in Susa the citadel, which
in Elam the province.
Susa the citadel [ ] names a capital city of Elam. 16 Susa was a winter
residence of Persian kings.17 John Collins tells us that Susa was one of the royal residences in
the Achaemenid Empire, and that according to Xenophon, Cyrus divided the year between
Babylon, Susa, and Ecbatana.18 The fact that the vision occurs during Babylonian rule but seems
to foreshadow Persian rule tells us that the mention of this capital city betokens dramatic changes
for the Babylonian empire; Persia is on the march.
How was Daniel in Susa? Was he there physically and literally? Or, was he transported there
somehow in spirit, as part of the visionary experience? The text before us is silent, but as Slotki
points out, if Daniel were physically in Susa it is difficult to explain how he came to be on the
kings business [see Dan 8:27a] so far from the capital in the last days of the Babylonian
empire.19
Summary.
Dan 8:1-2 serves to establish the credentials of Daniel as a prophet; if his prophetic calling had
not been clear earlier, then it certainly is now. The key term, repeated three times in two verses,
is vision, a term that seals Daniels position as a prophet.
What is more, Dan 8:1-2 serves to alert the reader to the tension that must have been
surging within the empire. As noted above, the reign of Belshazzar was skating on thin ice; what
is more, the reference to Susa hints at the emergence of the Persian threat to Babylon. Indeed, as
Daniel 8 will make clear, beyond Persia is Greece. The political situation is fluid to say the least;
14 Paul Joon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, translated and revised by T. Muraoka, 2 vols.
(Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istotuto Biblico, 1996) 146 d [hereafter abbreviated J-M].
15 Ibid., 146 a.
16 KB2, 1455.
17 Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, C.A. Briggs, The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew
and English Lexicon (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1979; reprint), 1004 [hereafter abbreviated BDB].
18 John J. Collins, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993),
329.
19 Judah J. Slotki, Daniel-Ezra-Nehemiah; revised by Rabbi Ephraim Oratz and Ravshalom
Shahar (New York: The Soncino Press, 1993), 64; similarly, Louis Hartman and Alexander Di
Lella, The Book of Daniel (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005; paperback), 233; Tremper
Longman, The NIV Application Commentary: Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 202; and
E.J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980; reprint), 166.
8

2016
Loren Lineberry,
but, as the book of Daniel avers, God is sovereign over national and international political
currents in human history.
II.
A vision report of a ram and a he-goat [Dan 8:3-14]

A.
The vision of the ram [Dan 8:3-4]

8:3a
Then, I raised my eyes and
looked,

8:3b and behold: a single ram,

standing before the river,

and on it a pair of horns;

8:3c
now, the pair of horns high,

but, the first horn higher than
the second,

with the higher coming up last.

8:4a
I beheld the ram,

tossing and goring west and
north and south,

while no beast could
stand before him,

in fact, there was none who
could deliver from
his power;

8:4b so he did exactly as he pleased,
and thus, he magnified himself.

Syntactical outline
8:3a
8:3b
8:3c
8:4a
8:4b
(continuation of report) Then, I raised my eyes and looked

(detail of vision report) and behold: a single ram
(detail concerning the ram) standing before the river
(second detail concerning the ram) and on it a pair of horns
(detail concerning the horns) now, the pair of horns high
(second detail concerning the horns) but the first horn higher than the second
(detail concerning the higher horn) with the higher one coming up last
(continuation of report) I beheld the ram
(detail concerning the ram) tossing and goring west and north and south
(second detail concerning the ram) while no beast could stand before him
(clarification) in fact, there was none who could deliver from his power
(result statement) so he did exactly as he pleased
(further consequence) and thus, he magnified himself
The syntactical outline shows us several things. Obviously, the vision is dominated by
the ram [Dan 8:3b, 4a]. However, in Dan 8:3, the emphasis is on the horns of this ram, the term
being repeated three times. Then, in Dan 8:4, the ram is once more the subject of the vision, but
this time the emphasis seems to be more on what the ram does with his horns. Thus, this
9

2016
Loren Lineberry,
paragraph introduces the ram in the vision and then provides rich detail concerning might. The
closing result statements speak for themselves.
Paragraph sense
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
(xi)
(xii)
(xiii)
[Next event in the vision] Then, I raised my eyes and looked

[Detail concerning (i)] and behold: a single ram
[Detail concerning (ii)] standing before the river
[Detail concerning (ii)] and on it a pair of horns
[Detail concerning (iv)] now, the pair of horns high
[Detail concerning (v)] but, the first horn higher than the second
[Detail concerning (vi)] with the higher coming up last
[Next event in the vision] I beheld the ram
[Detail concerning (viii)] pushing west and north and south
[Detail concerning (ix)] while no beast could resist him
[Clarification of (x)] in fact there was none who could deliver from his power
[Consequence of (viii-xi)] so he did exactly as he pleased
[Result of (xii)] and thus he magnified himself
Obviously, the sense of the paragraph concerns the ram, but the way the author offers
detail after detail suggests that the author was intent on our understanding the extent of the power
this ram possessed and how he used it. As we shall see, the horn is a symbol of strength and
power, thus the threefold repetition of horn drives this point home. Then, tossing and goring
suggests the use to which this ram puts his considerable power, followed by his unassailability
and his hubris.
The theme of Dan 8:3-4 could almost be communicated in a single idea: destructive and
unstoppable power. This theme is embedded in the wealth of detail concerning the ram, details
that all underscore his dominance and his supremacy. Indeed, his preeminence slides easily into
his self-glorification. In a nutshell, Dan 8:3-4 is about power and pride.
Dan 8:3-4 is a vision, which is a revelation in visual form. It involves a perception
which is distinct from normal sight and is not available for public observation. 20 As a revelation,
we can appreciate the rich detail given to us in the vision, details that constitute the revelation.
What is more, as a visionary experience, there is a plethora of symbolic language that should be
considered with some caution.
Dan 8:3 I raised my eyes and looked, and behold: a single ram, standing before the river, and
on it a pair of horns; now, the pair of horns high, but the first horn higher than the second,
with the higher coming up last.
20 Collins, FOTL, 120.

10

2016
Loren Lineberry,
Ram [] is a metaphor for the kings of Media and Persia [Dan 8:20]. In other
words, there is some overlap between this ram [] and these kings. Now a metaphor is a
non-literal comparison between the ram and the political leaders mentioned in Dan 8:20. 21 More
to the point for the interpreter, in a metaphor there is an intended point of comparison [emphasis
mine] on which we are being asked to concentrate to the exclusion of all irrelevant fact.
Accordingly, what is the intended point of comparison between the ram and the political leaders
identified in Dan 8:20? Owing to the emphasis on the results of this rams power in Dan 8:4, we
might conclude that the point of comparison is pragmatic: in pragmatic comparisons, we
compare the activity or result of one thing with that of another. 22 If this is the case, then the
point of comparison is teased out with pushing, no beast could stand before him, none who
could deliver from his power, and he did exactly as he pleased.
On it a pair of horns [ ] is a prepositional phrase that draws our attention to the
power of this ram. The horn [] in the vision is obviously visualized as the horn of this
ram; at the same time, the next verse warrants reading the reference to horn as a symbol of
strength and power.23
The first horn higher than the second [ ] is a verbless
clause; the translations tend to insert was, but this insertion slides over an important function of
the verbless clause. Ellen van Wolde tells us that, in a verbless clause written as this one is, the
reader is asked to focus attention on the element in the second position, 24 higher than the second
in this case. But, focus to what end? Obviously, the vision intends to signal the exceptional
power of the first horn relative to the second. But, the next line teases out this relative power
more fully.
With the higher coming up last [ ] is a reference to Persia.
The net effect is that Persia entered the world stage later than Media but ultimately played a
more major part.25
These last two clauses point to the tenuousness of human political-military power; one nation
dominates for a season only to be removed from the world stage by another, more powerful,
regime. Horns, and the human strength they symbolize, are strong yet strangely vulnerable. 26
They fail, or refuse, to recognize the truth of Zechariah 4:6, Neither by might nor by raw power,
but by My spirit do men even hope to prevail in a fallen world.
Dan 8:4 I beheld the ram, pushing west and north and south, while no beast could resist him, in
fact, there was none who could deliver from his power; so, he did exactly as he pleased, and thus,
he magnified himself.
21 For the idea of a metaphor, see G.B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (London:
Duckworth, 2002; reprint), 144-59.
22 Ibid., 147.
23 KB2, 1145.
24 Cynthia L. Miller, ed., The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches, The
Verbless Clause and Its Textual Function, by Ellen van Wolde (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,
1999), 331.
25 John D.W. Watts, ed., Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 30, Daniel by John Goldingay
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1989), 208.
26 Ibid., 219.
11

2016
Loren Lineberry,
This verse seems to be the focal point of the paragraph, alerting the reader to the violence and the
expansionism of the ram/empire. Moreover, the ram/empire, for the time being, is invincible and
unchallengeable; accordingly, he basks in the glory of his might.
Pushing [] translates the verb, , a Piel participle. We may attend to
the import of the Piel stem. When a verb is transitive [takes a direct object] in the Qal stem, and
this one is transitive in all three of its usages in the Qal, then the Piel stem is resultative; it
designates the bringing about of the outcome of the action designated by the base root. 27 So,
what does actually mean?
Since is such an important term in this paragraph, a more detailed analysis of it should be
helpful. is from a semantic field of terms for pushing, goring, thrusting in the OT.28
There are six other verbs in this semantic field:
[1] [Qal = push, thrust; Niphal = be pushed, be thrust down; Pual = be thrust down 29].
[2] [Qal = beat/drive excessively (cattle); Hithpael = hurl oneself/beat at (a door) 30].
[3] [Qal = thrust/push someone; push away/drive out someone 31].
[4] [Qal = thrust someone into32].
[5] [Poel = to sink (horn) into33 ].
[6] [Qal = thrust/drive; pitch (a tent); fasten to; strike/clap (hands); give a blast/alarm; be
fastened; in Niphal = be struck; allow someone to be struck; be blown (rams horn) 34].
When we analyze the range of meaning of , we note that it means: in the Qal, to gore (an
ox); in the Piel, to gore or push; and in the Hithpael, to join in combat [Dan 11:40]. The question
is: what distinguishes from the others terms in the semantic field?
First, and probably foremost, this is the only term in the semantic field associated with a
beast, thus the author probably chose this term for the fact that it fit neatly with previous context
in Daniel 7, where the protagonists were various beasts. In other words, the use of this term
maintains the cohesion of Daniel 7-8.
Second, the usage of in Dan 8:4 means pushing, driving, forcing, thrusting or
ramming the rams way forward. When has the meaning of gore (to death), the
resultant state of death is explicitly stated in the context, 35 so we may rule out in the sense
of gore (to death) or destruction. There is more expansionism in , when used with
west and north and south, than devastation.
While no beast could resist him [ ] is a
clause that is introduced by a disjunctive waw [], which signals background or offline
27 Bruce Waltke and Michael OConnor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 24.1h [hereafter abbreviated IBHS].
28 NIDOTTE, Pushing, goring, thrusting.
29 CDCH, 77.
30 Ibid., 82.
31 Ibid., 86.
32 Ibid., 165.
33 Ibid., 328.
34 Ibid., 494.
35 An ox gores to death [Exodus 21:28, 29, 31-32, 36]; and one human gores another until
that person is consumed [1 Kings 22:11; 2 Chronicles 18:10].
12

2016
Loren Lineberry,
information and may be translated with while.36 The upshot is that this clause is the flipside of
the previous one, depicting this ram as unchallengeable. More to the point, this clause is a
categorical denial that any beast at any time was able to resist this ram; in logical terms, the
beast is wholly excluded from the class of beings who could resist this ram. 37
Resist him [ ] is a collocation that is used eight times in Daniel [Dan 1:5,
19; 2:2; 8:3, 4, 6, 7; 11:16] with basically three ranges of meaning: [1] to stand as a servant
before ones master (Dan 1:5, 19); [2] to stand in a fixed position before (Dan 8:3, 6); and [3] to
stand firm before a foe (Dan 8:7; 11:16). H. Ringgren avers that this collocation [
] means stand firm, withstand.38 The net effect is that the collocation implies resistance
and resistance was futile when confronted by this regime. Baldwin writes, The rapid progress of
Cyrus during the ten years 549-539 suggested a ram goring every beast that withstood him. 39
In fact, there was none who could deliver from his power [ ] is a
clarification of the previous line; that is, in addition to the fact that there is no resisting this
regime, now we see that there is no rescue from this regime. As with the previous line, so also
here, we have a categorical denial: none are wholly excluded from the class of persons who
could deliver.
There was none [] is a focus particle that places a particular focus on the entity
or clause that follows them.40 In this case, the focus is on the non-existence []41 of
deliverance. To put it in a nutshell, the fact that none could resist this regime made deliverance
null and void.
Deliver from [ ] is written in the Hiphil stem, which is a causative stem.42 In this
case, there were no causes available that could rescue/deliver from the military clout of this
regime.
Deliver from the hand/power [ ] is a collocation that is used sixteen times in the
OT, all of them in the Hiphil stem and therefore causative.43 Basically, the collocation means to
remove or separate someone from the dominion of another. In most passages, it is Yahweh who
does the separating;44 twice, it is man who does the disengaging;45 and in two passages, no
particular actor is identified.46 The nature of the dominion varies and is clarified by the context;
thus the variety of dominion has no bearing on the sense of the collocation. The net effect is that
36 IBHS, 39.2.3b.
37 See Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic (New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1982), 179.
38 G.J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, H.-J. Fabry, ed., Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament,
vol. XI (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), , by H. Ringgren, 183 [hereafter abbreviated
TDOT with the appropriate volume number].
39 Baldwin, 156.
40 Christo H.J. van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naud, and Jan H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew
Reference Grammar (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000; reprint paperback), 41.4.
41 KB1, 42.
42 Van der Merwe 16.7.2.
43 Genesis 37:21; Exodus 2:19; 3:8; 18:9; 1 Samuel 4:8; 12:10; 17:37; 2 Samuel 12:7; Psalm
31:15; 144:11; Jeremiah 15:21; Ezekiel 34:27; Hosea 2:10; Zechariah 11:6.
44 Exodus 3:8; 18:9; 1 Samuel 12:10; 17:37; 2 Samuel 12:7; Psalms 31:15; 144:11; Jeremiah
15:21; Hosea 2:10; Zechariah 11:6.
45 Genesis 37:21; Exodus 2:19.
46 1 Samuel 4:8; Daniel 8:4.
13

2016
Loren Lineberry,
all [none] are wholly excluded from the classes of humans who could separate his victims from
this regimes dominion.
So, he did exactly as he pleased [ (Qal, waw consecutive perfect, 3rd, ms)]
is a clause that teases out the consequence of this regimes unchallengeable power. The verb in
this clause is written as a waw consecutive perfect, a construction that signals a consequent
situation when following a line with a participle as the main verb. 47
Did [] in the Qal stem has the following ranges of meaning: [1] make or manufacture, [2]
attach, [3] to make for, [4] to create, [5] to give effect to, do, [6] acquire, [7] prepare, [8] to carry
out, perform, [9] to act, behave (toward another), and [10] to do, treat. 48 The collocation do
exactly as [ (verb + preposition prefixed to a noun)] may help us disambiguate the
meaning of /did.
Do exactly as plus a noun is a collocation that appears forty four times in the OT. Interestingly,
the collocation [do exactly as he pleased ( )] appears three times in Daniel
[Dan 8:4; 11:3, 36] and once in Esther [Esther 1:8]. The Esther context is that of a royal banquet
with feasting and drinking; accordingly, the meaning of the collocation would be a variant of
meaning 7, above, in the sense of to care for the desires of the attendees. 49 However, the
context of each of the Daniel references is military power unilaterally employed; accordingly, the
meaning of the collocation would be more along the lines of act or behave, number 9 above.
What is more, H.M. Barstad affirms that do exactly as one pleases [ ] is an
idiom for arbitrary conduct.50
Pleased [] is a noun that is used in two contexts in the OT: [1] in a non-religious
context, and [2] in a religious context.51 Obviously, the usage in Dan 8:4 excludes meanings in
the religious context. [pleased] is from a semantic field of terms for Pleasing. 52
has the following ranges of meaning: [1] pleasing, [2] wish, longing, [3]
capriciousness, maliciousness ().53
The net effect is that did exactly as he pleased suggests that this powerful regime acted or
behaved in whatever manner suited the regimes best interests. Since the difference between
[2] and [3] above is blurry, there may be elements of both self-will and capriciousness in the use
of the idiom. Joyce Baldwin notes that nearly two hundred years of history and political
aggrandizement, such as the world had not seen before, are summed up in this verse. 54
As a result of the peerless power of this regime, the result is this: he magnified himself
[ (Hiphil, was consecutive perfect, 3rd, ms)]. The use of the Hiphil stem of the verb
communicates that the regime causes itself to be regarded as great;55 in other words, this regime
is drugged with the narcotic of its own hubris.
47 IBHS 32.2.5a.
48 KB1, 890-92.
49 Ibid., 891.
50 H.M. Barstad, , in TDOT, vol. XIII, 628.
51 Ibid., 1282.
52 Se NIDOTTE, Pleasing.
53 KB2, 1282.
54 Baldwin, 156.
55 IBHS, 27.2f.
14

2016
Loren Lineberry,
This is as good a time as any to raise a key point: this Hiphil stem of , pointing to
monumental self-aggrandizement, is used here of the Medo-Persian regime and then later in
Daniel 8:25 of a Grecian regime. The point is that the ram and the he-goat, Medo-Persia and
Greece, overlap or coincide in the modus operandi of their rapacity and violence; the larger point
is this: there are common denominators among these rogue regimes throughout history as they
seek to impose their will upon all who resist them and, thus, the attempt to pin down one specific
regime as the one to which Daniel refers in this, or any other passage, is pointless. These regimes
have had many successors; so, they illustrate the fact that there are patterns in history.
Magnify [] is found among a semantic field of terms for great. 56 The other
terms in the field are [rapid growth, increase, a multitude of something 57],
[multiplication, numerous, multiply 58], and [growth, increase, expansion59].
The distinction between and these roots in the field seems to be that may be used
more widely in an abstract sense, such as magnificent, triumph, or magnify oneself. In
other words, the ideas of growth, development, increase and enlargement are less prominent in
; rather , as used in the Hiphil, focuses more on [1] splendor/glory or [2] triumph.
Magnify [] written in the Hiphil stem is used transitively [with a direct object] fifteen
times, and intransitively [without a direct object] nineteen times. As the usage in the Daniel 8:4b
passage is intransitive, we consider only the usages of the Hiphil of used intransitively.
Of the uses of intransitive in the Hiphil, there are two constructions: [1] plus a
preposition and [2] used alone. Both of these constructions are used in Daniel 8.
The uses of with a preposition tend to communicate triumph over someone or
something, with the precise sense of triumph varying from context to context. The dominant
construction is plus the preposition .60 A similar sense of triumph over is also
signaled by the use of plus the preposition in Daniel 8:11.
There are only five uses of alone in the Hiphil, and of these, only three use the Hiphil of
in the form of a finite verb.61 The 1 Samuel 20 passage requires inserting an infinitive
from the previous line in order to get the sense: David wept [infinitive] the most []. The
Lamentations 1 passage uses with a subject, enemies [], that triumph over
[] Jerusalem. This sense is warranted for Lamentations 1:9 owing to the mention of the
fall [] of Jerusalem. This leaves Daniel 8:4, which uses the Hiphil of in the sense
of magnify oneself;62 act mightily, act boastfully, magnify oneself.63 E. Jenni notes that the
Hiphil of may be an inner-causative usage of the root, implying to make oneself great,
to make oneself become great.64 R. Mosis renders the Hiphil of in Daniel 8:4 in the
sense of to prove oneself to be great actually and effectively. 65
56 See Great in NIDOTTE.
57 Andrew Hill, , in NIDOTTE [H8045].
59 Gary Smith, , in NIDOTTE [H8434].
60 Job 19:5; Psalm 35:26; 38:17; 41:10; 55:12; Jeremiah 48:26, 42; Ezekiel 35:13; Zephaniah
2:8, 10.
61 1 Samuel 20:41; Lamentations 1:9; Daniel 8:4.
62 KB1, 179.
63 CDCH, 62.
64 E. Jenni, , TLOT I, 304.
65 R. Mosis, , in TDOT, vol. II, 404.
15

2016
Loren Lineberry,
The net effect is that in Daniel 8:4 implies that this ram, the Medo-Persian regime, touted
its impressiveness, flaunted its glory, ballyhooed its grandeur, and paraded it power. As D.S.
Russell put it, this regime is inflated with a sense of their own importance. 66
Summary
Daniel 8:3-4 is a vision report of a ram, later identified as Medo-Persia [Daniel 8:20]; in other
words, this ram represents a nation state, an empire, an instantiation of human governance.
Daniel 8:3 opens with this regime being described with a metaphor: it is a ram. When all
is said and done, the point of a metaphor is to tease out some comparison; and, in this case, the
comparison is pragmatic. This regime gets results: it pushes [so far!]; it is beyond resisting [for
the time being!]; it is invulnerable [for the moment!]; it is invincible [at least for now!]; and it is
grand and glorious [for now!]. As John Goldingay notes concerning regimes such as this one,
Force and violence are of the essence of their lives. It is how they come into existence and how
they stay in existence.67 Whether Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome in ancient times or
Germany or Russia in more modern times, the hallmark of human governance is its belief in the
proposition that it is by might alone that men prevail.
Power is the watchword for this ram/regime. To begin with, the horns are a symbol of
aggressive, forceful, and hard-hitting strength; this is a regime that, for the moment, prevails. At
the same time, the visionary notes that one horn was higher than the second; human militarypolitical power is relative, never absolute, and never permanent. As we shall presently see in the
next paragraph, human governance established on the principle of overwhelming might is
tenuous; the expansionist regime will be proven to be vulnerable; the irresistible empire will
show itself to be fragile; the invulnerable kingdom will betray its feebleness; the invincible state
will be exposed as precarious; and the magnificent, boasting, arrogant monarchy will bare its
ricketiness.
Daniel 8:4 is chapter and verse on the results, the superficially unstoppable fallout that
this ram/regime/Medo-Persia achieves. Like Hitlers Blitzkrieg in World War II, this regime is
relentless and irresistible, unyielding and uncontainable, overpowering and overwhelming.
This ram/regime pushes in virtually every direction: pushing, driving, forcing, shoving,
ramming; this ram/regime prevails: no competing regime could successfully offer resistance; this
ram/regime, for all appearances, was permanent: for there was no superpower on the horizon that
could deliver from this regimes political-military might.
Finally, the regime enjoys the spoils: it does exactly as it pleases and gloats and struts and
swaggers. He does exactly as he pleases means that whatever is in Medo-Persias national
interest is what needs to be done; self-will is mingled with capriciousness to yield a nation
absorbed only in Medo-Persia first. He magnified himself means that this kind of regime
labors and struggles and dreams and plans and propagandizes to make itself great in the worlds
estimation, to celebrate and boast of one triumph after another, crowing about the pompous
wonder of human political-military prowess.
66 J.C.L. Gibson, ed., The Daily Study Bible Series, Daniel by D.S. Russell (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1981), 142.
67 Goldingay, 219.
16

2016
Loren Lineberry,

B.
The vision of the he-goat (and the small horn) [Dan 8:5-12]

8:5a
While I was reflecting,

8:5b behold: a he-goat,

was coming from the west,

over the surface of all the earth,

and without touching the
ground;

8:5c
now the he-goat a
conspicuous horn between
his eyes.

8:6a
Then he came toward
the two-horned ram,

whom I saw standing
beside the river;

8:6b so he charged him,

in his powerful rage.

8:7a
That is, I saw him charging
toward the ram,

then, he showed his fury toward
him,

and so, he butted the ram,

and smashed into
fragments his two horns,

indeed the ram
did not have the strength to
stand against him;

8:7b then he threw him to the ground
and trampled
him;

while there was none
who could deliver the
ram from his power.

8:8a
So, the he-goat
magnified himself exceedingly;

8:8b but, as soon as he
became powerful, the great
horn was shattered,

and then, four
conspicuous [horns] grew up,
after it,

toward the four winds of
heaven.

8:9a
While, from one of them,

another horn came up
from the smallest one;
8:9b then, he grew
exceedingly powerful toward the
17

2016

even as far as the host
Loren Lineberry,
south and the east,
and toward the most beautiful.
8:10a And he grew important,
of heaven;

8:10b and so, he threw to the
ground some of the host
some of the stars,
and he crushed them to pieces.

8:11a Indeed, even as far as the prince
of the host, he
magnified himself;

8:11b for, from him, the daily offering
was removed,

and so, his sanctuary place was
discarded.

8:12a That is, the host will be
given over along with
sacrifice, iniquitously,

8:12b and so, it will cast truth to the ground,

thus, he acted successfully.
Syntactical outline
8:5a
(Continuation of report) While I was reflecting
8:5b [1](Main assertion) Behold: a he-goat was coming from the west
(Spatial locater) over the surface of all the earth,
(Attendant circumstance) and without touching the ground;
8:5c
(Clarification) now the he-goat a conspicuous horn between his eyes.
8:6a [2] (Sequential event) Then he came toward the two-horned ram,
(Clarification) whom I saw standing beside the river,
8:6b [3](Sequential event) so, he charged him,
(Manner) in his powerful rage.
8:7a
(Resumption with detail) That is, I saw him charging toward the ram,
(Sequential) then, he showed his fury toward him,
(Logical consequence) and so, he butted the ram,
(Sequential) and smashed into fragments his two horns,
(Attendant circumstance) indeed, the ram did not have the strength to stand
against him;
8:7b [4](Sequential) then he threw him to the ground and trampled him,
(Attendant circumstance) while there was none who could deliver the ram
from his power.
8:8a [5](Sequential) So, the he-goat magnified himself exceedingly;
8:8b
(Contrast) but, as soon as he became powerful, the great horn was shattered,
[6](Sequential) and then, four conspicuous [horns] grew up after it,
(Spatial locater) toward the four winds of heaven.
8:9a
(Attendant circumstance) While, from one of them, another horn came up
from insignificance;
18

2016
Loren Lineberry,
8:9b [7](Sequential) then, he (the smallest one) grew exceedingly powerful

(Spatial locater) toward the south and the east, and toward the
magnificent.
8:10a
(Sequential/logical) And he grew important,
(Spatial locater) even as far as the host of heaven;
8:10b
(Sequence after 8:10a) and so, he threw to the ground some of the host of
some of the stars,
(Explanation of 8:10b) and he crushed them to pieces.
8:11a
(Clarification) Indeed, even as far as the prince of the host, he magnified himself;
8:11b
(Reason) for, from him, the daily sacrifice was removed,
(Summary) and so, his sanctuary place was discarded.
8:12a
(Clarification) That is, the host will be given over along with the daily sacrifice
iniquitously,
8:12b
(Consequence) and so, it will cast truth to the ground,
(Consequence) thus, he acted successfully.
Paragraph sense
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
[Next sighting in the vision] While I was reflecting,

[the he-goat]
[First assertion in report] Behold: a he-goat was coming
[Spatial locater of (ii)] from the west,
[Spatial locater of (iii)] over the surface of all the earth,
[Attendant circumstance of (iv)] without touching the ground;
[Clarification of (v)] now, the he-goat a conspicuous horn between his eyes.
(vii)
(viii)
[Second event after (ii)] Then, he came toward the two-horned ram,
[Clarification of (vii)] whom I saw standing beside the river,
(ix)
(x)
(xi)
(xii)
(xiii)
(xiv)
(xv)
[Third event after (ii, vii)] so, he charged him,

[the ram engaged]
[Manner of (ix)] in his powerful rage.
[Detail of (x)] That is, I saw him charging toward the ram,
[Sequential event after (xi)] then, he showed his fury toward him,
[Logical consequence of (xii)] and so, he butted the ram,
[Sequential event after (xiii)] and smashed into fragments his two horns,
[Attendant circumstance of (xiv)] indeed, the ram did not have the strength to stand
against him;
[the ram]
(xvi)
(xvii)
[Final event] then, he threw him to the ground and trampled him;
[defeat/desecration]
[Attendant circumstance of (xvi)] while there was none who could deliver the ram from
his power.
(xviii) [Attendant circumstance of (xvii)] So, the he-goat magnified himself exceedingly;
(xix) [Contrast to (xviii)] but, as soon as he became powerful, the great horn was shattered,
(xx)
[Sequential event after (xix)] and then, four conspicuous [horns] grew up after it,
(xxi) [Spatial locater of (xx)] toward the four winds of heaven.
(xxii) [Attendant circumstance of (xx)] While from one of them, another horn came up from
19

2016
Loren Lineberry,
insignificance;
[Sequential event after (xxii)] then, he grew exceedingly powerful
Spatial locater of (xxiii)] toward the south and the east, and toward the magnificent.
[Summary statement after (xxiii)] And, he grew important
[Spatial locater of (xxv)] even as far as the host of heaven;
[Sequential after (xxv)] and so, he threw to the ground some of the host, some
of the stars,
(xxviii) [Epexegetical after (xxvii)] and he crushed them to pieces.
(xxix) [Clarification of (xxviii)] Indeed, even as far as the prince of the host, he magnified
himself;
(xxx) [Clarification of (xxix)] for, from him, the daily offering was removed,
(xxxi) [Summary statement of (xxix-xxx)] and so his sanctuary place was discarded.
(xxxii) [Clarification of (xxxi)] That is, the host will be given over along with the daily sacrifice
iniquitously;
(xxxiii) [Consequence of (xxix-xxxii)] and so, it will cast truth to the ground,
(xxxiv) [Consequence of (xxxiii)] thus, he acted successfully.
(xxiii)
(xxiv)
(xxv)
(xxvi)
(xxvii)
The reader can see that this paragraph, Dan 8:5-12, actually builds up to the final event in
the report: the defeat of the ram and the aftermath of the defeat [Dan 8:7-12]. Indeed, in the
paragraph, the bulk of its sense is dominated by the aftermath of the defeat of the ram, MedoPersia. And, probably the key repercussion of the defeat of the ram is the emergence of another
horn in Dan 8:9, which we go so far as to challenge Yahweh Himself, Dan 8:10-12. We might
conclude that this paragraph is about defeat and desecration.
Dan 8:5-12 depicts the emergence of conflict between empires, Medo-Persia and Greece
in this case, leading to the desecration of God and His sanctuary. Pride of place must go to the
theme of desecration for the basic subject of this paragraph.
Once more in Dan 8:5-12, we have a vision, which is a revelation in visual form. It
involves a perception which is distinct from normal sight and is not available for public
observation.68 This vision originates from another world, a supernatural world, and offers a
vision of future reality unavailable to the human mind.
Dan 8:5 While I was reflecting, behold: a he-goat was coming from the west, over the surface
of all the earth, and without touching the ground; now, the he-goat a conspicuous horn between
his eyes.
While I was reflecting [ ] is a circumstantial clause, offering
background information relative to the first main clause [behold: a he-goat was coming]. 69
Reflecting [] is a Hiphil participle from the root . The root is found among a
semantic field of Hebrew terms for discernment. 70 The usage of the participle in Dan 8:5
68 Collins, FOTL, 120.
69 IBHS 39.2.3b; see also J.C.L. Gibson, Davidsons Introductory Hebrew Grammar (Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1994), 135, 137.
70 See Discernment in NIDOTTE.
20

2016
Loren Lineberry,
means to consider;71 to give heed to,72 or to attend to.73 Ultimately, Daniels attempt to
discern the vision will require divine interpretation [Dan 8:16-17ff].
He-goat [] is an exceptionally fierce and powerful animal; accordingly,
on the power scale, the he-goat outranks the ram.74
Over the surface of all the earth [ ] is actually a prepositional
phrase. The preposition, , has as its direct object a construct chain: the surface of all of the
earth. Overall, the prepositional phrase is spatial, probably comprehensive locational.75 With that
said, the prepositional phrase is an example of hyperbole, a conscious exaggeration for the sake
of effect, possibly in this case emotional truth.76 More than likely, the vision seems to intend
to underline the worldwide pretensions of this Grecian leader.
And without touching the ground [ ] is another circumstantial
clause that provides additional background information concerning the rapid movement of the hegoat.77 Clearly, this line is hyperbole, communicating extremely swift movement; the implication
is that this he-goat rapidly overcomes his opposition, moving forward quite easily. Finally,
similar language is used in Isaiah 41:3 of Cyrus, the ram in the previous paragraph. Cyrus is said
to move by a path his feet do not travel. The point is made, once more, that most of these
various beasts/regimes mimic each other in their modus operandi; it would be foolhardy to
attempt to pin any given political-military behavior exclusively on a specific instantiation of these
regimes, for there is overlap between them.
The he-goat a conspicuous horn [ ] is a verbless clause.
Furthermore, there is an accent on the he-goat/, pointing to a pause after reading
. This punctuation adds to the focus on the predicate: a conspicuous horn [
]. The verbless clause invites the reader to concentrate on a conspicuous horn [
]. Obviously, there is something worth considering with this noun, conspicuous
[].
Conspicuous [] has two ranges of meaning: [1] revelation, [2] distinction,
prominent.78 BDB opts for conspicuousness in appearance for in Dan 8:5;79 this
usage is unique to Dan 8:5, 8. Holladay follows suit with consequence, conspicuous. 80
Evidently, the conspicuousness [] of this regimes power [horn/] is in view.
We should note that in Dan 8:21 this he-goat with the conspicuous horn is identified as Grecian.
While we have made the point that the modus operandi of these various regimes overlaps, this
does not prohibit the author of the vision from singling out one specific example: Greece. In the
case of Greece, one example of such a leader would be Alexander the Great. Focusing on
71 KB1, 122.
72 CDCH, 45.
73 BDB, 107.
74 See Montgomery, 329-30; Goldingay, 209.
75 IBHS 11.2.13b.
76 Leland Ryken, Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1997), 177.
77 Gibson 135, 137.
78 KB1, 302.
79 BDB, 303.
80 Holladay, 99.
21

2016
Loren Lineberry,
Alexander, D.S. Russell offers insight into the conspicuousness of his person and his power
[]:81
He (Alexander) was a man of boundless energy, at times
merciless and cruel without a trace of conscience. Though a
careful schemer and a skilled general, he sometimes acted on
impulse, following resolutely the decision of the moment,
prepared to slaughter without pity or remorse all who stood in
his path or who in any way roused his suspicion. He was a
military genius who inspired his troops with his own
irrepressible enthusiasm and supreme confidence. His military
tactics, in which the striking power of the cavalry [emphasis
mine] was a prominent factor, made for easy and rapid
movement [emphasis mine], and help to explain the remarkable
progress of his campaigns.
Dan 8:6 Then he came toward the two-horned ram, whom I saw standing before the river; so
he charged him in his powerful rage.
To avoid misunderstanding, we may identify the actors in this line this way: he [the he-goat]
came toward the two-horned ram, which I saw, standing before the river; so he [the he-goat]
charged him [the ram] in his [the he-goat] powerful rage.
There is a slight difference in meaning between came toward [] and charged
[]. Both imply motion toward, with the first, came toward [], suggesting
approach82 and the second denoting speed.83 In other words, the approach is distinguished by
its speed. This correlation dovetails with Professor Russells note, above; it also merges with
Hitlers Blitzkrieg in World War II [there are patterns in history; Alexander the Great was neither
the first nor the last to employ in military campaigns].
Charged [] denotes haste and swiftness. As noted above, is from a sematic field
of terms for speed. P. Maiberger notes that denotes rapid, purposeful running with an
urgent motivation (run, hasten, charge).84 Among the military contexts in which is
used, it is used both alone [Josh 8:19; 2 Sam 22:30; Ps 18:30] and with a preposition [ (Dan
8:6)] to denote a military battle charge. Maiberger writes, Dan 8:6 uses the image of a goat
charging a ram to represent the campaign of the Greek army under Alexander the Great against
the empire of the Medes and the Persians.85
In his powerful rage [ ] is a prepositional phrase, using the preposition in an
instrumental sense: with, by.86 What is more, powerful rage is written in the construct state,
81 D.S. Russell, The Jews From Alexander to Herod (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972;
reprint), 2.
82 The root [] is from a semantic field of terms for Coming, approaching, entering,
NIDOTTE.
83 is from a semantic field of terms for Hurry, speed, NIDOTTE.
84 P. Maiberger, , in TDOT, vol. XIII, 416.
85 Ibid., 419.
86 IBHS 11.2.5d.
22

2016
Loren Lineberry,
probably an attributive genitive, which means that the rage is characterized as powerful.87 It
is interesting to note that powerful rage is associated with a military campaign; see the note
above from Russell.
Rage [] is from a sematic field of terms for anger, rage, wrath. 88 The noun appears three
times in the Hebrew of Daniel [Dan 8:6; 9:16; 11:44]. In Dan 8:6, the noun refers to Alexander
the Great; in Dan 9:16, it refers to Yahweh; and in Dan 11:44, it seems to refer to Antiochus
Epiphanes. Again, as far as military leaders are concerned, is not restricted to any single
political-military leader.
Rage [] has the following range of meaning: [1] heat, [2] poison, venom, and [3] rage,
wrath, of either men or Yahweh.89 When used of humans, /rage may be used in the
following ways: [1] of the rage of one human directed toward others [Gen 27:44; Est 5:9; Isa
51:13; Ezek 23:25; Dan 8:6; 11:44], [2] of rage as a state of mind/emotion, without necessarily
being directed anywhere,90 and [3] of human rage as somehow akin to Yahwehs .91
When used in strictly human terms, as /rage is in Dan 8:6, the root means being hot
(from excitement), thus boiling then wrath.92 Sauer renders in Dan 8:6 with
excitement, agitation.93 K.-D. Schunck concurs, The notion of being hot (through the action
of poison, wine, or excitement) probably furnishes the point of departure for all three
meanings.94
When used of animals [Deuteronomy 32:24, 33; Psalm 58:5; 140:4; Daniel 8:6], is used
of deadly poison or venom of a serpent. It seems that the author of Dan 8:6 has applied a human
usage of to an animal; indeed, this application fits the imagery of a he-goat for the empire
of Greece.
At the same time, the usage of /rage in Dan 11:16, being clarified with
exterminate [] and destroy [], denotes the abstract quality of deadly rage.
Indeed, the usage of /rage in Ezekiel 23:25 [Ezekiel 23:25-27 is the larger context], cited
above, denotes atrocities committed in war. We conclude, then, that /rage in Dan 8:6
denotes a much higher level of fury than mere excitement or agitation; rather, the usage of
/rage suggests a level of rage with few restraints; indeed, the qualification of /rage
with /powerful implies as much.
Powerful rage uses a noun, powerful [], to characterize the level of the /rage.
The noun has the following range of meanings: [1] used of humans: (a) physical strength,
(b) more inclusively: ability, efficiency, (c) power of a people, (d) power opposed to that of God,
(e) power conferred by God; [2] strength of angels; [3] the power of God: (a) in creation, (b) in
87 On this construction, see IBHS 9.5.3a; Gibson 35 c; and Ronald Williams, Hebrew Syntax:
An Outline (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996; reprint), 41.
88 See Anger, rage, wrath in NIDOTTE.
89 KB1, 326.
90 2 Sam 11:20; 2 Kings 5:12; Est 1:12; 2:1; 3:5; 7:7, 10; Ps 37:8; 76:11; Prv 6:34; 15:1, 18;
16:14; 19:19; 21:14; 22:24; 27:4; 29:22.
91 Jer 6:11; Ezek 3:14.
92 G. Sauer, , in TLOT I, 435.
93 Ibid., 436.
94 K.-D. Schunck, , in TDOT, vol. IV, 462.
23

2016
Loren Lineberry,
governing the world, and (c) in acts of deliverance and judgment; [4] the power of animals (Job
39:11, 21; 40:16; Prov 14:4; Dan 8:6-7); and [5] the strength of the soil; i.e., produce or wealth. 95
The inclusive usage of in the sense of ability or efficiency may be seen to apply to
the usage of in Dan 8:6b. It will be remembered that in his powerful rage uses
/powerful more or less like an adjective to characterize rage. When we look to parallel
constructions [Job 23:6; 30:18; 36:19; Ps 33:16; Isa 44:12; 63:1], ability or efficiency emerge in
the usage of the collocation. For example, in Job 36:19, Elihu advises Job: Will your opulence
keep you from distress? Or, all your powerful [/efficient] efforts? In this regard, H.
Ringgren affirms that the basic meaning of is vital energy, including the ability to
perform a function.96
So it is here in Dan 8:6b; this he-goats rage is effective, productive, and adept at
overwhelming the ram/Medo Persia. This empires deadly rage [] is not chaotic, not
frenzied, not helter-skelter, not merely feverish and undirected, but rather totally effectual and
completely successful, as we shall see in Dan 8:7.
Summary of Dan 8:5-6
This is a convenient time to summarize the vision of the he-goat to this point. These two verses
introduce the new actor in the vision [Dan 8:5] and what this new actor is up to [Dan 8:6].
Dan 8:5 introduces us to the new visionary specter, offering considerable detail about
him. To begin with, he is introduced as a he-goat, which is an exceptionally fierce and
powerful animal.
Moreover, this fierce protagonist seems to have world-wide pretensions to conquer the
surface of all the earth [Dan 8:5b]. That this regime fancies itself an empire-builder is clear.
Moreover, as with the ram, so with the he-goat, the horror of human evil is especially
concentrated in the state.97 And, as we have pointed out, the overlap in violent tactics between
these beasts/regimes demonstrates that no one particular state is necessarily in view, rather
Daniel is alerting us to the kinds of tyrannies that will arise in the future.
Additionally, the author of Dan 8:5b uses hyperbole to underline the exceptionally rapid advances
this he-goat/Greece makes; the implication is that this he-goat rapidly overcomes his opposition,
moving forward quite easily. Concerning the ram in the previous paragraph, Isaiah represents
Cyrus moving just as rapidly and just as unhinderedly. The point is made, once more, that most of
these various beasts/regimes mimic each other in their modus operandi. Similarly, military
supremacy is not permanent, as Cyrus now finds out, compliments of Greece.
Also, this he-goat is identified as having a conspicuous horn between his eyes. This
conspicuous horn is shorthand for conspicuous power. Now, since Dan 8:21 specifically
identifies this he-goat as Greece, we are permitted to affirm that the one Grecian general that fills
the bill descriptively is Alexander the Great. Most commentaries and some Bible footnotes so
identify the he-goat as Alexander and this is permissible, with a caveat: Alexander the Great was
not the first, nor the last, military-political conqueror who entertained world-wide ambitions,
backed with the power to make the attempt. Alexander is a brief case study in Daniel 8; but, the
95 BDB, 470-71.
96 H. Ringgren, , in TDOT, vol. VII, 123.
97 Longman, 208.
24

2016
Loren Lineberry,
reader should not assume that he or she is finished with men like Alexander; he has had many
successors.
Dan 8:6 introduces us to the aggression of this Grecian empire-builder. Evidently,
Greece wastes little time storming Persia. Charged denotes haste and swiftness; that is, rapid,
purposeful forward motion with an urgent motivation (run, hasten, charge). When we turn to
Dan 8:7, the nature of this assault will be more fully teased out.
Finally, the author of Dan 8:6 underlines a major factor in this regimes modus operandi:
he advances in his powerful rage. As we noted, the lexeme powerful denotes efficient,
effectiveness, adeptness, productivity; the rage is not haphazard, disorganized, or chaotic.
Rather, this regime is adept, even expert, at deadly rage, possible including atrocities.
Dan 8:7 That is, I saw him charging toward the ram, then he showed his fury toward him, and
so, he butted the ram, and smashed into fragments his two horns, indeed, the ram did not have the
strength to stand against him; then, he threw him to the ground and trampled him, while there was
none who could deliver the ram from his power.
This verse is sufficiently complex to benefit from a syntactical outline:
8:7a (1) First event: That is, I saw him charging toward the ram,
(2) Second event: then, he showed his fury toward him,
Logical consequence: and so, he butted the ram
(3) Third event: and smashed into fragments his two horns
Offline comment: indeed, the ram did not have the strength to stand against him
8:7b (4) Fourth event: then, he threw him to the ground and trampled him
Offline comment: while there was none who could deliver the ram from his
power
The reader will observe that there is a progression here with the climax coming in the
third and fourth events, confirmed by their more complex structures.
First event: That is, I saw him charging toward the ram [Dan 8:7a1]. The English
versions translate charging toward differently. Some prefer a variant of the more wooden
translation: come beside of; others go with attack, come close to, or confront.
Charging toward [ (preposition) (Hiphil, ptc, ms, sg)] is a participial
clause. The participle functions as a verb in this clause; accordingly, the participle indicates
ongoing action in the context of the vision;98 the ram was charging towards. This verbpreposition combination appears only here in the Hebrew Bible. There is a punctuation mark
98 Van der Merwe 20.3.
25

2016
Loren Lineberry,
after /charging, indicating a slight pause; the sentence reads: I saw him charging
(pause) toward the ram.
Second event: Then, he showed his fury toward him [Dan 8:7a2]. The main verb is
[Hithpalpel, waw consecutive imperfect, 3rd, ms]. The syntactical function of
the waw consecutive imperfect is to signal chronological succession following the first event.99
The verb is written in the Hithpalpel stem, which is derived from the Hithpael stem. 100 The
nuance of the stem is probably an estimative-declarative reflexive, which means that the he-goat
presented himself in a state of fury.101 The net effect is that the approach of this military colossus
made quite a display of fury and terror.
Show fury [] is a verb found among a semantic field of terms for affliction or
oppression.102 This verb, , is used with three ranges of meaning in the Qal: [1] to be bitter,
in an emotional sense, [2] to be embittered in the sense of despairing, and [3] to taste bitter, as in
strong drink. In sense 2, despairing seems to be a figurative extension of being embittered. The
major point is the usage of in the Qal generally denotes either an emotional event or an
event associated with bitter taste.
Show fury [] in the Piel stem communicates the causation of a state experienced by the
subject; there seems to be two ranges of meaning, depending on context: [1] to become
embittered, and [2] to act in a state of bitterness (Genesis 49:23 to attack bitterly in a military
context).
Show fury [] in the Hiphil denotes causing an event that has the character of
causing bitterness or grief.
Show fury [] in the Hithpalpel stem is, as we have noted,
estimative/declarative/reflexive, which means to show oneself in a state as indicated by the verbal
root. In this case, the range of meaning is to become furious or to show fury.
To summarize what we have learned, it seems that the usage of has a fairly stable
sense of emotional involvement in the various stems and ranges of meaning within these stems.
In terms of the Hithpalpel in Dan 8:7, the emotional surfaces in the violence or the fury of the
attack of the ram by the he-goat. Accordingly, Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan
8:7 with to become furious.103 BDB opts for be enraged.104 Slotki goes with moved with
choler (bitterness/anger).105 The Old Greek translation uses for , a Greek
verb that means to become angry in the passive voice. 106 Quite interestingly, Theodotion uses
for , a Greek verb that means, in Dan 8:7, to become savage. 107
This sense admirably fits the context.
99 IBHS 33.2.1a.
100 Ibid., 26.1.1c.
101 Ibid., 26.2.f; see also J-M 53 i.
102 See Affliction, oppression in NIDOTTE.
103 KB1, 638; similarly, Holladay, 216.
104 BDB, 600.
105 Slotki, 66.
106 BAGD, 365.
107 LSJ, 580.
26

2016
Loren Lineberry,
And so, he butted the ram [ (Hiphil, waw consecutive imperfect, 3rd, ms]
is the logical outcome of the savage fury with which the he-goat attacks the ram.
Butted [] is from a semantic field of terms for beating, crushing, and grinding.108
The verb appears 502 times in the OT, with 483 of them in the Hiphil stem, which we have in
Dan 8:7. Accordingly, the ranges of meaning of in the Hiphil include: [1] to strike, beat,
beat down (a) a person, as an act of violence, (b) thrust, (c) pin someone, (d) clap hands, (e) play,
(f) strike roots, of a plant, (g) penetrate, of roots; [2] to strike fatally, kill (a) manslaughter, (b) in
an act of vengeance or punishment, (c) in warfare or conquest; [3] to attack, defeat, rout, destroy,
subdue; [4] to strike someone (a) with a plague, (b) causing an outbreak of tumors, (c) strike the
land; and [5] of Yahweh (a) to strike in punishment, (b) to strike for correction. 109 Of these,
option [1] seems to fit the context the best in Dan 8:7. Beyond this, Kohler-Baumgartner
translate in Dan 8:7 with strike, pierce, butt.110 The net effect is that in Dan 8:7
points to an intentional act of violence in the form of the he-goat striking the ram.
Third event: smashed into fragments its two horns [
(Piel, waw consecutive imperfect, 3rd, ms)]. The syntactical function of this sentence is to
continue the narrative with the next key event in the sequence. 111
Smash [] is found within a semantic field of terms for shattering, breaking,
destroying112 and occurs 148 times in the OT, with 36 of these in the Piel stem. Accordingly, we
note the following ranges of meaning for in the Piel: [1] to shatter (a) by throwing to the
ground, (b) to tear down completely, (c) of Yahweh, to break weapons; [2] to break or crush, [3]
to shatter or tear apart as an act of nature, and [4] of Yahweh to cause to be wrecked. 113
Furthermore, the sense of in the Piel is resultative; that is, the Piel stem signals that
breaking/smashing is a state that is brought about by the actor, the he-goat in this case, as an
end result.114 Accordingly, suggests that the state of shattering or smashing into
fragments115 the two horns is completed, as an end result.
Horns [] is a symbol of power;116 thus, the rams heretofore unassailable power is utterly
shattered to pieces. There is a pattern in history: great and powerful nations meet their Waterloo
at the hands of other great and powerful nations. This pattern seems to put into perspective the
very modern tendency for nations to place unquestioned trust in military-political power.
Offline comment: the ram did not have the strength to stand against him [
]. The syntactical function of this sentence is signaled by the
disjunctive waw [] prefixed to the negative particle []; this circumstantial clause
provides background information relative to the preceding line. 117 Now, the grammatical form of
the sentence is a bit different from the translation above; literally, the sentence reads: there was
108 See Beating, crushing, grinding in NIDOTTE.
109 CDCH, 273.
110 KB1, 698; similarly, BDB, 645; see also Holladay, 238.
111 IBHS 33.2.1a.
112 See Shattering, breaking, destroying in NIDOTTE.
113 CDCH, 447.
114 IBHS 24.3b,d.
115 KB2, 1404.
116 See the notes above on Dan 8:3, p. 11.
117 Gibson 135.
27

2016
Loren Lineberry,
no strength in/with the ram to stand against him. The upshot is that the ram did not have the
strength [] to resist [ ] the he-goat.
Strength to stand against [ ] is the operative phrase in the line. The term
strength [] is clarified by stand against [ ]. The lexeme
/strength has the following ranges of meaning: [1] strength (a) human, (b) human ability,
(c) power of a king or nation, (d) power/might of Yahweh or angels; [2] produce of the ground;
and [3] wealth.118 Now, in the vision as observed, the referent of /strength is the ram;
hence, the first option is probably the best. This means that /strength denotes the abstract
quality of strength or power, more specifically to stand against [ ].
The collocation [stand before] appears nine times in the OT,119 with the
following ranges of meaning: [1] to physically stand in the presence of someone; [2] to stand
before in order to serve or minister; [3] to stand so as to resist or hold ones ground; [4] to stand
so as to present oneself before Yahweh; and [5] to stand in the sense of representing the interests
of someone before another. Clearly, in Dan 8:7, meaning [3] pertains; the upshot is that the rams
strength is insufficient to allow him to resist or stand his ground against the he-goat. As a
comparative matter, the force and might of the he-goat overwhelm that of the ram. Ironically, the
same observation was made, once upon a time, of the ram in Dan 8:4a; that is, No beast could
stand before [ ] him. As Joyce Baldwin notes, great power, resulting in
self-importance, invites a great reversal. 120
Fourth event: then, he threw him to the ground and trampled him [
]. The syntactical function of this sentence is to present the reader with the
next key event in the sequence of events.121 This sentence communicates the he-goats
aggression toward the ram. Throwing to the ground in the vision is preparatory to trampling
the ram.
Trample [] is from a semantic field of terms for trampling, treading, subjugation. 122 The
verb appears nineteen times in the OT, with 18 in the Qal stem and 1 in the Niphal stem. The
ranges of meaning for the Qal include: [1] humans trampling: (a) another human, (b) the life of
another human in a figure of death, (c) a wild animal in a figure of victory, (d) the divine court in
a figure of disrespect, (e) a city in a figure of judgment, (f) clay, and (g) as a figure of oppressors;
[2] animals trampling with the feet; and [3] Yahweh tramples in His wrath ().
Trample [] is clearly the event of an animal trampling with its feet. 123 E.-J. Waschke
affirms that in Dan 8:7, there is a sense of an invulnerable animal 124 dragging its prey to death.
Slotki reads as an act of a predator that was not satisfied until he had utterly completed
its (the rams) destruction.125 S.R. Driver sees a connotation of contempt in the action. 126
118 CDCH, 174.
119 Exodus 9:11; Numbers 16:9; Deuteronomy 10:8; Judges 2:14; 1 Samuel 6:20; 2 Chronicles
29:11; Ezra 9:15; Jeremiah 40:10.
120 Baldwin, 156.
121 See Van der Merwe 21.2.1 (ii).
122 See Trampling, treading, subjugation in NIDOTTE.
123 KB2, 1245.
124 E.-J. Waschke, , in TDOT, vol. XIII, 511.
125 Slotki, 66.
126 Driver, Daniel, 114.
28

2016
Loren Lineberry,
Offline remark/attendant circumstance: while there was none who could deliver the ram from his
power [ ]. This sentence is introduced by a
disjunctive waw [] on the first word of the line, indicating an offline, circumstantial sentence
that provides background material to the storyline. 127 The circumstances in which the ram now
finds himself precisely mirror the circumstances of the rams adversaries when the ram had the
power [see the notes on Dan 8:4a]. The point in all of this is that, whether it is Medo-Persia or
Greece, rogue nations follow similar paths; there are patterns in history: retention of power on the
world-stage is an illusion.
Summary.
Dan 8:7 extols the violence with which the he-goat attacks the ram; words for violent attack
abound in the verse: show fury, butted, smashed into fragments, threw to the ground, and
trampled him. What is more, as a corollary, Dan 8:7 underscores the rams powerlessness
before the violent onslaught of the he-goat: did not have strength to stand against him, while
none could deliver from his power. Accordingly, the verse underlines the fact that,
provisionally at least, nations do prevail by might; but, the operative term is provisionally. The
ram learns that his once invincible hold on power [Dan 8:4] is tentative; some call upon chariots,
some call upon horses [Ps 20:7], ultimately to no avail.
Violence is the theme that carries the verse. There is charging in the sense of
confrontation; there is the display of fury and the butting of the ram in the sense of striking
violently; there is smashing in the sense of shattering into fragments; and there is trampling,
with denotations of complete destruction and connotations of contempt for the enemy.
Naturally, powerlessness is the subtext. The ram was unable to stand against his
attacker; that is, the ram was helpless to hold his ground before a superior force. Not only was
the ram, Medo-Persia, internally defenseless, externally there were no allies to rescue the nation
from the Grecian onslaught: none could deliver from his power.
Dan 8:8 So, the he-goat magnified himself exceedingly; but, as soon as he became powerful,
the great horn was shattered, and then, four conspicuous [horns] grew up after it, toward the four
winds of heaven.
It is useful to outline the syntactical flow of this verse:
8:8a (1) First event (attendant circumstance of 8:7): So, the he-goat magnified himself
exceedingly;
8:8b (2) Second event (contrast): but, as soon as he became powerful, the great horn was
shattered,
(3) Third event (next even in sequence): and then, four conspicuous [horns] grew up after
it,
(spatial locater): toward the four winds of heaven
If, as we have noted above [see notes on page 21], this Grecian leader [Dan 8:21] is
Alexander the Great, then the remarkable thing about Dan 8:5-8b is that eight years of
127 IBHS 39.2.3b; Gibson 135, 137.
29

2016
Loren Lineberry,
Alexandrian history are summarized in four verses. The author, Daniel, seems to be a bit
dismissive of what, arguably, was one of the worlds great political-military masterminds.
Moreover, the author intends to hasten on to Dan 8:9, where a single horn will dominate the
remainder of the paragraph.
As we have noted repeatedly, one must not over-interpret Dan 8:7 by restricting the
referent exclusively to Alexander the Great. Indeed, even in Daniel 8, other leaders have
magnified themselves [the ram in Dan 8:4], and other leaders have also subsequently been
shattered [again, the ram in Dan 8:7a]; while Alexander the Great is one instantiation of this
pattern, he has predecessors and successors.
First event: he magnified himself exceedingly [ (Hiphil,
perfect, 3rd, ms)] is a clause that is essentially unique in Daniel. That is, while is used
elsewhere in Daniel of leaders that magnify themselves, this is the only occurrence of the verb
with the modifier exceedingly. Indeed, this is the only occurrence of this collocation
[ /magnify exceedingly] in the entire Hebrew Bible.
Magnify himself [] has been dealt with above [see pages 15-16]; to recap, the
Hiphil of means to act boastfully; to make oneself great, especially to prove oneself to
be great actually and effectively. 128 In this context, referring to a man like Alexander the Great,
the reader may consider that has more the sense of a man who actually proves to be
an exceptional leader and military strategist; in other words, it seems as if there is far more of
consequence and substance to the man and his accomplishments than mere bravado.
Alexander the Great [356-323 BC] was indeed a remarkable man. At age thirteen, Alexander
became a pupil of the famous philosopher Aristotle, from whom he acquired an insatiable thirst
for knowledge.129 After growing to manhood, he made himself master of an enormous empire,
stretching from Macedonia in the west to India in the east, from Armenia and Bactria in the north
to Egypt and Arabia in the south.130 Russell recounts the events recorded in Dan 8:7-8 thus: 131
In 334 BC, with a force of 35,000 men, he crossed the
Hellespont and entered Asia Minor. There, on the banks of the
River Granicus, near the ancient city of Troy, he defeated the
Persian army sent against him by Darius III. This success
opened the way to the conquest of the whole of Asia Minor, for
the defeated army was the only sizable Persian force in the
whole area. Alexander had little difficulty in overrunning and
liberating one city after another. Occasionally, he met with
opposition, as at Halicarnassus, which he burned to the ground;
but for the most part, his march southwards and eastwards was
unimpeded until he came to the borders of Syria. There at the
Cilician Gate near Issus he met Darius, who had mustered his
armies to halt Alexanders perilous advance (333 BC). Darius
was routed and fled for his life, leaving behind members of his
own family and certain prominent Greek emissaries who were
taken captive, together with much booty.
129 Russell, Jews from Alexander to Herod, 1.
130 Ibid.
131 Ibid., 3.
30

2016
Loren Lineberry,
This accentuated point of history has a message: it is unwise for the reader of Daniel to ignore the
realities behind the very real power and terror, competence and ability, of these assorted beastly
regimes. The forces that organize themselves against God and man are not complete idiots, and
they ought not to be regarded as such; these adversaries of the human race as well as God and His
people are often impressive and formidable, relentless and unyielding foes.
Second event: but, as soon as he became powerful, the great horn was shattered
[ ]. This sentence is a contrastive sentence
vis--vis Dan 8:8a; the contrast is implied by the success-failure antithesis implied in Dan 8:8ab.132 Moreover, the front-loaded infinitive clause with the preposition highlights the key event
prior to the subsequent fall from power.133
Became powerful [ (Qal, infinitive construct)] is from a root [] that is within a
semantic field of terms for power and strength.134 The verb appears eighteen times in the Hebrew
Bible and three times in Daniel [Dan 8:8, 24; 11:23]; most of the occurrences are in the Qal stem
[17] with one Hiphil usage. The verb in the Qal has the following ranges of meaning: [1] to be
powerful, and [2] to be countless.135
The fact of the matter is that there are ranges of power, and it might be instructive to consider the
various ways in which Alexander the Great manifested his power; that is, he demonstrated
social power and economic power.
To be sure, the Greek culture brought to prominence by Alexander the Great created
enormous benefits. One might consider the social aspects of this beneficence. To begin with,
Alexander the Great initiated a move toward a homogeneous population, speaking or at least
understanding the Greek Language and enjoying a common culture. 136 The upshot is a kind of
unification of culture. Furthermore, there was the establishment of new cities. 137 Some of these
cities functioned as administrative centers, complete with magistrates, a council, an assembly,
courts, and other typical institutions of the polis. 138 This is certainly using power, but using it in
a constructive manner.
Beyond the social progress attached to the beneficence of Alexander the Great, there are
the economic aspects as well. The Greek skills in shipping aided the expansion of markets,
which, in turn, brought more products onto the market. Owing to the shipping capabilities of the
Greeks, wheat, grains, papyrus, wool, linens, clothing, dyes, silk, vessels made of precious metals
and glass; all made an appearance in Greek economic culture. 139 Moreover, with the conquests of
Alexander the Great, the culture experienced the creation of a monetary economy. That is, there
can be no doubt that Alexanders conquests put into circulation vast quantities of silver (and gold
132 IBHS 39.2.3b.
133 Van der Merwe 20.1.5; IBHS 36.2.2b; GKC 114 d; Williams 505.
134 See Power, strength in NIDOTTE.
135 KB1, 868.
136 C. Bradford Welles, Alexander and the Hellenistic World (Toronto: A. M. Hakkert Ltd.,
1970), 153.
137 Ibid., 154.
138 Ibid., 157.
139 Ibid., 167-68.
31

2016
Loren Lineberry,
too, though gold was never important as a monetary metal in antiquity) accumulated by Persian
kings and now paid out or spent or given to favorites.140 War is often good for the economy!
This brief foray into the more beneficent value of Alexander the Greats power has a
lesson to teach us: if, as we have been affirming, the fall of Alexander the Great in Dan 8:8b is
ultimately owing to the sovereignty of God over the national and international political affairs of
mankind, then the reader should note that even the greatness of ones civilization is no firewall
against the intervention of God by way of the removal of both leader and nation from the world
scene. In other words, there is a warning here for those nations that fancy themselves advanced
civilizations and benefactors to mankind: even the worlds great civilizations come under the
judgment of God! There are patterns in history.
The great horn was shattered [ (Niphal, perfect,
3rd, fs)] is the crux of the second event in this sequence; indeed, there is a compelling subtlety
here. To begin with, the verb is written in the Niphal stem, which means that the great horn is
being acted upon by an agent, who is not specified.141 Fair enough; but there is something else:
the great horn was shattered sounds like military language wherein the great horn is shattered
in battle. Now, this is where the subtlety comes in: Alexander the Great did not die in battle;
rather he died within ten days of taking a fever.142 Later, in Dan 8:25, yet another politicalmilitary leader is shattered [], but this time we have this: but not by human hands.
One wonders: could Alexander the Great have been shattered, but not by human hands?
Third event: and then, four conspicuous [horns] grew up after it, toward the four winds of
heaven [
]. As noted in the syntactical outline, there are two components in this sentence:
the main even four conspicuous [horns] grew up and a spatial locater relative to the four
horns toward the four winds of heaven. We tackle each in turn.
Four conspicuous [horns] grew up after it [
] is the third main event. The rationale for inserting horns into the Hebrew text
[/horn does not appear in this line] is grammatical. That is, the prepositional phrase
after it is written with a 3rd, feminine, singular suffix [it]; and horn [] is also
feminine; hence, we may insert horns into the line. What is more, the full phrase
conspicuous horn [ ] is used in Dan 8:5 of the he-goat. In Dan 8:5,
conspicuous denotes the quality of the consequentialness of this regimes, Alexanders, power.
As a matter of historical fact, upon the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC, his single
regime was divided among four of his generals. Macedonia was parceled out to Cassander; Asia
Minor to Lysimachus; Syria to Seleucus; and Egypt to Ptolemy. Read with these four generals in
mind, the drift of this sentence is that these four engaged in a power-grab at an opportune
moment. Indeed, this is the reading attached to this line by most commentators.
At the same time, the reader might weigh and consider the following in addition to the
above: these four are characteristic of a pattern in history; that is, a great nation falls and the
remnants are the victims of a seizure of power. Alexanders kingdom was not the first nor would
it be the last to fall and then be divided into smaller political entities.
140 Ibid., 173.
141 IBHS 23.2.2.
142 Russell, The Jews from Alexander to Herod, 7.
32

2016
Loren Lineberry,
Toward the four winds of heaven [ ] is a figure of

speech suggesting fragmentation of a once united and powerful empire under a single, dominant,
leader.
Summary
Dan 8:8 is an exceptionally brief account of an exceptional empire in world history. On
the surface of the text, the verse refers to Alexander the Great.
For openers, the verse affirms that this leader, Alexander the Great, magnified himself.
In essence, this tells us that this leader showed himself to be an exceptionally gifted leader. The
reader should note that principals on the world stage are quite often superbly talented men or
women. The reader of Daniel should avoid underestimating the kinds of rulers, even the violent
ones, who appear in the book.
Moreover, the verse tells us that power is fleeting; even the most gifted and successful of
leaders may be undercut. In this case, the above rulers horn was shattered. In addition, there
are indications that Dan 2:21 is in operation here [Yahweh deposes kings and He appoints them].
In the case of Alexander the Great, he did not die in battle but succumbed to a fever ten days after
contracting it.
Finally, the single horn/kingdom fragments into four parts; four conspicuous horns grew
up after it toward the four winds of heaven.
The brevity of this verse is understandable; that is, the author is about to turn to the focal
character in the paragraph [Dan 8:5-12]; to this end, Dan 8:5-8 sets up the appearance of this
most rapacious player on the regional scene.
Dan 8:9-12 While from one of them, another horn came up from insignificance; then he grew
exceedingly powerful toward the south and the east, and toward the magnificent. And he grew
important, even as far as the host of heaven; and so, he threw to the ground some of the host and
some of the stars, and he crushed them to pieces. Indeed, even as far as the prince of the host, he
magnified himself; for, from him, the daily offering was removed, and so, his sanctuary place was
discarded. That is, the host will be given over along with the daily sacrifice with iniquity; and so,
it will cast truth to the ground, thus, he acted successfully.
I have placed the remainder of the paragraph together, since it is best understood as a
unified field of thought. The subject of this section of the paragraph [Dan 8:9-12] is the single
horn that emerges from the four conspicuous horns in Dan 8:9b. This section of the paragraph
[Dan 8:9-12] details the aggression and the desecration of this single horn.
The commentators identify this single horn as Antiochus Epiphanes [175-164 BC]. 143
Indeed, it appears that Antiochus Epiphanes will become a referent of Daniels prophecy in Dan
8:23-25, and especially in Dan 11:21-45. While the Guide accepts this identification as factual,
143 Young, 170; Slotki, 66; Driver, Daniel, 115; Russell, Daniel, 143; Goldingay, 209;
Montgomery, 333; Collins, Daniel, 331; Keil, Daniel, 295.
33

2016
Loren Lineberry,
we doubt that Antiochus was the last ruler to pursue the twin goals of aggression and desecration.
We propose that Daniel has a wider objective in mind: to alert the reader to the fact that human
governance, in its more vicious and atheistic forms will combat and seek to eliminate God, the
people of God, and the interests of God from human consideration.
This section of the paragraph is so important and so complex that an outline of the unit is
warranted:
8:9a Background information: While from one of them,
(1) First event: another horn came up from insignificance;
8:9b - (2) Second event: he grew exceedingly powerful
Spatial locater: toward the south and the east and toward the magnificent
8:10a - (3) Third event: he grew important,
Spatial locater: even as far as the host of heaven;
8:10b - (4) Fourth event (next event in sequence): he threw to the ground some of the host and
some of the stars,
(5) Fifth event (explanatory of 8:10b): he crushed them to pieces.
8:11a - (6) Sixth event (clarification of 8:10): even as far as the prince of the host, he magnified
himself;
8:11b - (7) Seventh event (clarification of 8:11a): for, from Him, the daily offering was
removed,
Summary statement (of 8:10a-11b): and so His sanctuary place was discarded.
8:12a - (8) Eighth event (clarification of 8:11): that is, the host will be given over along with the
daily sacrifice with iniquity;
8:12b - (9) Ninth event (first consequence of 8:10-11): and so, it will cast truth to the ground,
(10) Tenth event (second consequence of 8:10-11): he acted successfully.
Dan 8:9 While from one of them, another horn came up from insignificance; then he grew
exceedingly powerful toward the south and the east and toward the magnificent.
While from one of them [ ] is a circumstantial clause, offering
an attendant circumstance, or, what amounts to the same thing, a piece of background information
34

2016
Loren Lineberry,
on this single horns origin.144 Ultimately, the origin of this single horn is traced back to the four
conspicuous [horns] in Dan 8:8b.
At a specific level, while from one of them probably refers to the Alexandrian general Seleucus
who, after the death of Alexander the Great, become regent over Syria. Indeed, we noted above
that the four Alexandrian generals probably engaged in a power grab as the Alexandrian empire
was divided in four pieces. Dan 8:9 picks up the story with Antiochus Epiphanes ascent to
power.
E.R. Bevan recites the path to the throne of Syria taken by Antiochus Epiphanes. First,
the Syrian regent, Seleucus was assassinated in 175 BC by his chief minister Heliodorus. 145
The assassination of the rightful ruler left three legitimate heirs to the throne: the elder son of
Seleucus, the boy Demetrius, detained as a hostage in Rome; there was a younger son, Antiochus,
still a baby in Syria; and there was the late kings brother, Antiochus, now probably about forty,
living in Athens.146
Second, it appears that the plan of Heliodorus was apparently to proclaim the baby Antiochus as
king, and rule himself in the childs name.147 Ultimately, as we shall see, this was the plan that
Antiochus Epiphanes adopted.
Third, Antiochus had no military power with which to seize the throne by force, so he managed,
for reasons that remain ambiguous, to forge an alliance of sorts with Eumenes II, the king of
Pergamum.
Fourth, when Antiochus appeared in Syria with a Pergamene force, the country soon
rallied around him. Heliodorus probably had little support and disappeared. 148
Finally, it seems that not all of Syria supported Antiochus power grab; indeed, it looks as if many
in Syria thought that either Demetrius or the baby Antiochus were the legitimate heirs to the
throne. Bevan writes, Our scrappy data indicate that it required a good deal of dexterity and
intrigue on the part of Antiochus for him to establish his position in Syria, but that he did get the
better of the opposing elements.149 Ultimately, Antiochus did not displace his nephew, the baby
Antiochus, but assumed by his side the position of king-regent. 150
However, this line need not be restricted to a specific referent, Antiochus Epiphanes, for the
reader may glean a more general significance from the line. That is, Antiochus Epiphanes was
not the first nor would he be the last political opportunist to make a grab for power when the
opening presented itself. Antiochus ascent to power was marked by a good deal of dexterity
and intrigue; in other words cunning, scheming, deception, deviousness, and more than likely no
small degree of unscrupulousness. This small line, and the reality it denotes, is one of those
lamentable patterns in political history.
144 Williams 322; IBHS 11.2.11b.

145 CAH, vol. VIII, 496.
146 Ibid., 497.
147 Ibid.
148 Ibid.
149 Ibid., 498.
150 Ibid.
35

2016
Loren Lineberry,
With this picture of an ascent to power, we have the first event: another horn came up
from insignificance.
From insignificance [ (preposition, , prefixed to adjective, fm, sg)] is
a problematic prepositional phrase. The syntactical function of the phrase is to signal origin.151
Insignificance [] is an adjective found among a semantic field of terms for little, trifle,
insignificant.152 When used as an adjective, /small means: [1] small or [2]
insignificant, either socially or politically (depending on the context); when used as a noun,
/small means: [3] an insignificant one (depending on context either socially,
individually, or of a servant); [4] a small one (in size); and [4] young (as opposed to old); as well
as [5] a little one, or a child.153
Given the context, a politicians usurping a throne that is not his by right, the best sense
of is insignificance. Perhaps the idea is that Antiochus rise to power may be described
as with insignificant or unpromising beginnings.154 As E.J. Young puts it, from small
beginnings the horn grew to great power.155 As an aside, this pattern from insignificance to
world power shines forth with stunning clarity in the rise of Adolph Hitler to power in Germany
in the last century. Here was an uneducated, unemployed, undisciplined, uncouth, uninspired
political rabble-rouser with no experience of working in government whatsoever who would
almost conquer the whole of Europe; from Antiochus to Adolph, there are patterns in history! 156
Second event: he grew exceedingly powerful [ (Qal, waw
consecutive, imperfect, 3rd, fm, sg)]. The syntactical function of the waw consecutive imperfect
in Dan 8:9b is to trace chronologically and sequentially the thread in the storyline.157
The collocation grow exceedingly powerful [ ] appears only in Dan
8:9b in the Hebrew Bible. The addition of the particle exceedingly [] is surely to
contrast the exceptional outcome with the unexceptional beginning. How does this happen? As
noted above, one exemplar of this pattern, Antiochus Epiphanes, did eventually enjoy the support
151 For signaling origin, see Williams 322.
152 See Little, trifle, insignificant in NIDOTTE.
153 CDCH, 382.
154 Most of the English translations have some form of a little horn or a small horn. This
translation follows the footnote in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia which deletes the preposition
[] and simply reads the adjective as a noun. The Guide is unwilling to change the text as
written, hence, the difference in translation.
155 Young, 170.
156 One of this worlds great historians, Ian Kershaw, asks the pertinent question: How do we
explain how someone with so few intellectual gifts and social attributes, someone no more than
an empty vessel outside his political life, unapproachable and impenetrable even for those in his
close company, incapable it seems of genuine friendship, without the background that bred high
office, without even any experience of government before becoming Reich Chancellor, could
nevertheless have such an immense historical impact, could make the entire world hold its
breath? [Ian Kershaw, Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris (New York: Norton, 2000; paperback), xxiv] I
bring that out in order to ask this: perhaps modern reader of Daniel 8:9 should begin to be alert to
the pretenders to political power who display, at the beginning at least, little or no promise of
becoming politically dominant.
157 IBHS 33.2.1a.
36

2016
Loren Lineberry,
of Syrian society; in other words, this tyrant, and others like him since, does not become
exceptionally powerful without exceptional support, voluntary or otherwise, from their people.
He grew [] is written in the Qal stem; in the Qal stem, is a stative verb,
essentially describing an attribute of this regime. 158 Basically, a stative verb is one that describes
a circumstance or state, whether external and physical, or psychological, or perceptual. 159 With
all of that, the ranges of meaning of in the Qal are: [1] to grow up or become strong, [2]
to be great, [3] to become great or wealthy, and [4] to be great or important. 160
Owing to the contextual emphasis on the beginning of this regime in Dan 8:9a, the best
option for in Dan 8:9b is to become great or strong. The Guide attempts to capture this
nascence with he grew exceedingly powerful. R. Mosis affirms that in the Qal in Dan
8:9b denotes a great power that arbitrarily, unlawfully, and presumptuously demands
recognition, and is successful in gaining superiority over others. 161
Toward the south and the east [ ] are, at the very
least, compass points. Taken in general, these compass points suggest expansionism; in other
words, this regime is successful in gaining military-political authority over a fairly widespread
geographical area. This regime, characterized by the small horn [Dan 8:9a], is intent on empirebuilding. The reader is advised to keep this general perspective in mind, since the spirit of
imperialism has not been confined to the 6th -2nd centuries BC. Now, to the extent that one
particular exemplar of this expansionism is Antiochus Epiphanes, then the south refers to Egypt
and the east refers to Elymais, east of Babylon. 162
As far as the Egyptian campaign goes, evidently, there were two such campaigns, one in
169 B.C., and another a year later in 168 BC.163 The first campaign was a success; the second
was marked by Antiochus rebuff by Rome. The campaign in the east is a bit fuzzy as far as the
details go; as Russell notes, Little is known about this Parthian campaign, in which, apparently,
Antiochus won a number of victories before dying, it is said, of consumption in 163 B.C. (cf. 1
Macc. 6:1-16).164 Apparently, in terms of the great power of Antiochus Epiphanes, there are
limits to and reversals in expansionism. This is yet another broad-spectrum perspective the
reader should keep in mind.
Toward the magnificent [] is another direction of colonialism. The noun
[] appears 18 times in the Hebrew Bible, four of them in Daniel [Dan 8:9; 11:16, 41, 45].
Since the noun is used in parallel with the two previous directional/geographical references, we
may assume a similar directional/geographical use here. Furthermore, the use of with an
article [] is used five times in the Hebrew Bible [Deuteronomy 12:22; 2 Samuel 1:19;
Daniel 8:9; 11:16, 41]. The 2 Samuel reference is specified as a reference to Israel. The last two
uses in Daniel are found in a genitive relation: in the beautiful land [ ].
158 J-M 41 b, f.
159 IBHS 22.2.1c.
160 KB1, 179.
162 Driver, Daniel, 115; Slotki, 67; Montgomery, 333.
163 Russell, The Jews form Alexander to Herod, 33.
164 Ibid., 34.
37

2016
Loren Lineberry,
is found within a semantic field of terms for glory, honor, and majesty.165 The
noun has shades of meaning: [1] ornament/decoration, [2] splendor, [3] glory, [4] magnificence. 166
The noun is used of directional/geographical references eleven times in the Hebrew Bible. 167 The
usages of with the article and referring to a location all occur in Daniel [Dan 8:9; 11:16,
41].
does have ancient Near Eastern cognates. The Akkadian cognate [tsibtu]
means wish, need, intention, purpose; the Syriac cognate [tsebt] means will, thing];
another Syriac cognate [tsebyn] means favor, delightfulness.168 Finally, there may be a
Ugaritic root [tsb] that means to covet or to desire; leading Collins to propose that has
some such sense as object of desire. The net effect is that has a geographical location
as its referent, probably Israel, yielding the sense the magnificent (land).
Summary
Dan 8:9 opens the crux of the paragraph; the flow of the paragraph has been building up to this
player on the Grecian scene. The theme of Dan 8:9 is this leaders emergence from
insignificance [] to exceptional regional power [].
The beginning of this regime was inauspicious, to say the least. Insignificance means
that he came on the regional scene with unpromising beginnings. In a general sense, then, the
reader is informed or reminded that an inconsequential leader may not remain not worth
mentioning. Moreover, if, as we noted above, one of the examples of this kind of leader is
Antiochus Epiphanes, then his ascendency to the throne that was not his by right also denotes his
insignificance.
The regime hit the ground running; the would-be empire builder consolidated his power
and then embarked on his expansionistic agenda. The sense of he grew exceedingly powerful
is that this regime became a great power that successfully gained superiority over others in the
region.
Finally, this regime was expansionistic, just like all of the other regimes in Daniel 7-8,
and antagonistic. The two compass points, east and south, underline this regimes empirebuilding proclivities. Then, the muted reference to Israel, the magnificent (land), hints at the
antagonism between the regime and the interests of God, which will be unpacked later in the
paragraph [Dan 8:10-12].
Dan 8:10 And he grew important, even as far as the host of heaven; and so, he threw to the
ground some of the host and some of the some of the stars, and he crushed them to pieces.
We may depict the syntactical organization of Dan 8:10 this way:
8:10a - (3) Third event: he grew important,
Spatial locater: even as far as the host of heaven;
165 See Glory, honor, majesty in NIDOTTE.
166 KB2, 998.
167 Isaiah 13:19 [clearly Babylon]; 28:1 [clearly Samaria], 4 [Samaria]; Jeremiah 3:19 [Israel];
Ezekiel 20:6 [Promised land], 15 [Promised land]; 25:9 [clearly Moab]; Daniel 8:9; 11:16, 41, 45
[clearly Holy Mountain/Jerusalem].
168 KB2, 998.
38

2016
Loren Lineberry,
8:10b - (4) Fourth event (next event in sequence): (furthermore) he threw to the ground some
of the host and some of the stars,
(5) Fifth event (explanation of 8:10b): (that is) he crushed them to pieces.
The third event: he grew important, even as far as the host of heaven [
(Qal, waw consecutive imperfect, 3rd, fs)]. The syntactical function
of this sentence is to trace the progression of the thread of the discourse; 169 the author moves the
storyline further to depict this regimes attempt to place itself on an equal footing with God.
He grew important [] is the same verb we had in Dan 8:9 [he grew exceedingly
powerful]; the sense is pretty much the same to presumptuously demand recognition and
successfully gain superiority this time in a heavenly direction. This verb is used in the Hiphil
stem of nations that sought to magnify themselves over Yahweh [Psalm 35:26; Jeremiah 48:26, 42;
Ezekiel 35:13; Daniel 8:25].
Even as far as the host of heaven [ ] is a spatial locater,
plotting the direction of this heavenly expansionism. As far as the host of heaven is a
prepositional phrase. The preposition used here, , marks spatial positioning, a point up to
which a movement occurs.170 In other words, the direction of this regimes magnificent
recognition is aimed at God.
The host of heaven [ ] is a genitive phrase that appears sixteen times in the
Hebrew Bible.171 The phrase is used in two ways: [1] heavenly bodies, especially the stars, and
[2] the heavenly entourage of Yahweh.172 When is used of heavenly bodies,
the following connections are made: [1] the refers to the heavenly bodies
and is an object of forbidden worship/idolatry,173 [2] the refers to the
heavenly bodies and is a metaphor for what is beyond counting, 174 [3] the
refers to the heavenly bodies as a comprehensive designation of the universe. 175 Then, the
refers to Yahweh and His heavenly consorts.176
The host of heaven [ ] as used in the Hebrew Bible in the second sense above,
the heavenly entourage of Yahweh, points in Dan 8:10a to the regimes arrogant assault upon
God. Baldwin writes in this regard that this regime [and its leader] is claiming equality with
God.177 Montgomery, citing the phrases reference to Antiochus Epiphanes, notes that this is an
169 Van der Merwe 21.2.1 (ii).
170 Ibid., 39.18.
171 Deuteronomy 4:19; 17:3; 1 Kings 22:19; 2 Kings 17:16; 21:3, 5; 23:4, 5; 2 Chronicles 18:18;
33:3, 5; Isaiah 34:4; Jeremiah 8:3; 19:13; 33:22; Daniel 8:10.
172 KB2, 995.
173 Deuteronomy 4:19; 17:3; 2 Kings 17:16; 21:3, 5; 23:4, 5; Jeremiah 8:12; 19:13.
174 Jeremiah 33:22.
175 Isaiah 34:4.
176 1 Kings 22:19; 2 Chronicles 18:18.
177 Baldwin, 137.
39

2016
Loren Lineberry,
example of God-defying arrogance.178 In a nutshell, then, the importance of this regime and
its leader grows well beyond the merely human plane; rather, this is a man and a regime that
intend to replace the heavenly entourage of God with the mighty entourage of a human, manmade, political-military powerhouse.
Most commentators, and some Bible footnotes, mention Antiochus Epiphanes as the referent in
Dan 8:10a. As we have argued previously, Antiochus is a single instance of a much more
recurrent phenomenon. Having said that, it is the case that Antiochus Epiphanes is indeed a
referent for he grew important, as far as the host of heaven. To be sure, his name, Epiphanes,
means God present. What is more, not only does Antiochus defy the God of heaven in Dan
8:10, he also defies pagan deities of his own culture [Dan 11:37]. Beyond a doubt, this man,
indeed this kind of leader, is intent on elbowing any kind of deity out of the way and consigning
influence only to himself.
Fourth event: and so, he threw to the ground some of the host and some of the stars
[ (Hiphil, waw consecutive
imperfect, 3rd, fm, sg)]. The syntactical function of this line is epexegetical, that is the major fact
is presented first, 8:10a, and then 8:10b fills in a detail. 179 Hence, we translate, furthermore, he
threw to the ground.
Some of the host and some of the stars [ ] is a tricky
proposition.
For openers, the partitive use of the preposition translated some [] indicates an
attack on part of a greater whole.180 The partitive use of the preposition suggests some selectivity
on the part of this leaders attack on the host and the stars. Fair enough; but just what are the
host and the stars. Whatever they are, we would expect some overlap in meaning since both
are part of the selection process, and both he threw to the ground.
Host [] has the following ranges of meaning: [1] military service, [2] military men, troops,
[3] an assembly, group, [4] heavenly bodies, stars, [5] the heavenly entourage of Yahweh, [6]
service in the cult, and [7] compulsory labor.181
Stars [] have two ranges of meaning in the Hebrew Bible: [1] the stars of the sky, the
constellations,182 and [2] various personified uses.183 Obviously, then, / overlap
in the sense of heavenly bodies, stars, or constellations. The question is: is there any further
overlap between the two terms within this specific range of meaning?
It turns out that both and share a common usage: both are objects of worship184
and both are used in that sense in Deuteronomy 4:19. The upshot is that when Daniel reports that
178 Montgomery, 334.
179 IBHS 33.2.2a; Gibson 78; Van der Merwe 21.2.3 (ii).
180 For this use of the preposition, see IBHS 11.2.11e; Gibson 118; Van der Merwe [indicates
part of a greater whole].
181 KB2, 995; see also CDCH, 373.
182 Genesis 1:16; 15:5; 22:17; 26:4; 37:9; Exodus 32:13; Deuteronomy 1:10; 4:19; 13:22; 28:62;
1 Chronicles 27:23; Nehemiah 4:5; 9:23; Job 3:9; 9:7; 22:12; 25:5; 38:7; Psalm 8:3; 136:9; 147:4;
Ecclesiastes 12:2; Isaiah 13:10; 14:13; 47:13; Jeremiah 31:35; Ezekiel 32:7; Daniel 8:10; 12:3;
Joel 2:10; 4:15; Obadiah 1:4; Nahum 3:16.
183 Numbers 24:17; Judges 5:20; Psalm 148:3; Amos 5:26.
40

2016
Loren Lineberry,
this leader threw to the ground some of the host and some of the stars, the author is claiming
that this regime not only sought to replace Yahweh [Dan 8:10a], he also sought to destroy the
gods of the people.
In a general sense then, this kind of leader/regime intends to annul each and every form,
divine or idolatrous, of transcendent commitment wherever he finds it among conquered peoples.
The reader may consider the elimination of the transcendent as a prime objective of this kind of
regime.
In a more specific sense, our old friend Antiochus Epiphanes did try to do just that.
Montgomery reports that, indeed, Antiochus Epiphanes did endeavor to desecrate the temple of
Nanaea in Elymais.185 George Foote Moore has written on the sacrilege of this pagan temple.
Professor Moore writes concerning Antiochus, He makes war, not only on kingdoms and
nations, but on their religions, and actually overthrows some of their gods. 186 An account of this
particular attempt to overthrow and plunder a pagan temple and deity is recorded by Flavius
Josephus in his Jewish Antiquities:187
About the same time, King Antiochus, as he was entering the
upper country, heard of a city in Persia of surpassing wealth,
named Elymais, and that there was in it a rich temple of Artemis,
which was full of all kinds of dedicatory offerings, as well as of
arms and breastplates, which he had learned had been left behind
by Alexander, the son of Philip, king of Macedon. And so, being
excited by these reports, he set out for Elymais, and assaulted it
and began a siege.
The upshot is that the reader may infer that some of the host, that is, some of the stars is a
reference to the willingness of this leader to plunder even a pagan religion for his own purposes.
The reader is reminded, in a chapter largely devoted to the abuse of human political
power, that any challenge to the supremacy of an arrogant and self-serving political leader must
be destroyed. This includes the annihilation of any and all religious forces in the culture. What
Antiochus Epiphanes did in order to bolster his own hold on power has had many successors.
There are patterns in history.
He threw to the ground [ ] is what this regime does with the
idolatrous objects of worship mentioned above. The verb is written in the Hiphil stem, which
suggests the causation of an event,188 the initiative of this leader/regime to throw to the ground
[] these idols/gods.
When used in the Hiphil stem, has the following ranges of meaning: [1] to cause
to fall, to cause to drop, to cause to fall down, to cause to descend, to cause to collapse, to
184 For /host as an object of worship, see Deuteronomy 4:19; 17:3; 2 Kings 17:16; 21:3,
5; 23:4, 5; Jeremiah 8:2; 19:13; for /star as an object of worship, see Deuteronomy
4:19; Isaiah 47:13; Amos 5:26.
186 George Foote Moore, Daniel 8:9-14, The Journal of Biblical Literature 15 (1896), 194.
187 The Jewish Antiquities, Books XII-XIV, translated by Ralph Marcus (Harvard: Harvard
University Press, 1966; reprint), 185.
188 IBHS 27.2b.
41

2016
Loren Lineberry,
demolish; [2] to cause to bring down; [3] to cause to fall away, to cause to waste away; [4] to let
fall (to the ground), to let fail; [5] to drop, abandon, [6] to give birth to; [7] to cast a stone; [8] to
cast a lot; [9] to cause to fall upon; [10] to cause to fall before (supplication); [11] to cause
someone to lie down; and [12] to debase, disgrace (oneself). 189 Of these meanings, numbers [1]
and [2] seem to be closest in sense in this context. Obviously, whichever sense is chosen, the
question is: is the use of literal or non-literal?
If these words are taken literally, then Youngs remark is on point, If one contemplates
the details of casting down the stars and trampling upon them, the vision becomes extremely
grotesque.190
At the same time, a literal sense is found within the genre of myth. Collins explains that
casting down the stars was a common motif, The motif of knocking down the stars was known
in the ancient eastern Mediterranean world apart from Daniel, and although we cannot identify a
source from which Daniel might have adapted it, it is likely to have been a traditional motif
[emphasis mine].191 Now, this is not to say that Daniel is writing myth; rather, it is to say that he
borrows a common motif from his environment to communicate a pagan reaching for the stars
as a figure of replacing the deity. If this borrowing is what Daniel, as the author of this account,
is doing, then sense [2] above fits best: to cause to bring down. The upshot is that we might
translate: he displaced, he ousted, he supplanted, or he deposed some of the idols/gods [host
and stars] used by the people whom he conquered. When leaders of this sort ascend to the
throne, they brook no rivals, either earthly of heavenly.
Fifth event: and he crushed them to pieces [ (Qal, waw consecutive
imperfect, 3rd, fm, sg)] is a sentence, that if nothing else, confirms the conclusion reached above.
Once more, the waw consecutive imperfect is epexegetical, meaning that and he crushed them to
pieces adds detail and color to he threw to the ground some of the host and some of the
stars.192 The upshot is that this kind of leader, fronting for this kind of regime, utterly crushes
any would-be pretender, including those from the divine realm, to his throne.
One interesting feature of crushing [] is that crushing may reveal contempt for
that which is trampled underfoot [Psalm 9:6; Isaiah 1:12; 26:6 (humiliation); 28:3; 63:13; Ezekiel
34:18].
Summary
The gist of Dan 8:10 is the characterization of this small/insignificant horn [Dan 8:9] as a
leader epitomizing a regime that intends to replace the divine with his regime and his person in
the lives of those peoples whom he subjugated [Dan 8:9]. Not only would his power be
consolidated terrestrially [Dan 8:9], it would also be fused spiritually around the leader and his
regime [Dan 8:10].
The Dan 8:10 passage also reveals two motives that drive this kind of leader: hubris and
contempt. In the first place, Daniel reports that this visionary regime grew important. At the
time we noted that this leader and his regime presumptuously demanded recognition and
successfully gained superiority this time in a heavenly direction. The upshot is that
189 CDCH, 278-79.
190 Young, 171.
191 Collins, Daniel, 333.
192 See IBHS 33.2.2a; Gibson 78; and Van der Merwe 21.2.3 (ii).
42

2016
Loren Lineberry,
haughtiness, self-importance, and self-conceit are the hallmarks of this kind of regime; it has no
room for any authority above it, including God Himself.
Finally, Dan 8:10 depicts the contempt with which this leader and his regime look upon
those around them, especially disdain for God. Disregard and aloofness are the marks of this sort
of governance; there is neither respect for nor submission to God, His will, and His Word.
Dan 8:11-12 Indeed, even as far as the prince of the host, he magnified himself; for, from him
the daily offering was removed, and so his sanctuary place was discarded. That is, the host was
given over along with the daily sacrifice with iniquity; and so, it will cast truth to the ground, thus
he acted successfully.
I have placed these two verses together, since Dan 8:12 clarifies the sense of Dan 8:11;
we may outline the two verses thus:
8:11a - (6) Sixth event (clarification of 8:10a): he magnified himself;
(spatial locater) even as far as the prince of the host,
8:11b - (7) Seventh event (clarification of 8:11a): for, from Him, the daily offering was
removed,
Summary statement (of 8:11a-b): and so His sanctuary place was discarded.
8:12a - (8) Eighth event (clarification of 8:11): that is, the host was given over along with the
daily sacrifice
(manner) with iniquity;
8:12b - (9) Ninth event (first consequence of 8:10-11): and so, it will cast truth to the ground,
(10) Tenth event (second consequence of 8:10-11): thus, he acted successfully.
Sixth event: Indeed, even as far as the prince of the host, he magnified himself
[ ] is a sentence that functions syntactically to clarify
Dan 8:10a, the leader/regimes penchant for displacing Yahweh. 193 The clarification vis--vis
Yahweh is warranted on the basis of the back reference in Dan 8:11a [magnified
himself] to the same verb, he grew important in Dan 8:10a.
Even as far as the prince of the host [ ] is a prepositional phrase that
indicates a spatial goal: even as far as the prince of the host.194 The preposition suggests that
the object of interest, the focus in this event is the prince of the host.
The prince of the host [] is shorthand for Yahweh. The noun, , has the
following ranges of meaning: [1] a commander (of an army), [2] a national leader, ruler, official,
[3] a royal domestic master, a courtier, steward, [4] a tribal chief, leader of a clan, [5] ruler of a
district, provincial governor, [6] principle city governor, [7] a magistrate, arbiter, [8] religious
193 See Gibson 135, 137.
194 For used to signal a goal, see BDB, 724; IBHS 11.2.12d.
43

2016
Loren Lineberry,
leader, cultic overseer, [9] a notable (person), [10] a person of authority, an elder, [11] a warden,
[12] a chief herdsman, [13] a taskmaster, [14] music master, [15] a leader of itinerants, [16]
messianic ruler (Prince of Peace), [17] angelic prince, [18] Yahweh. 195 That Yahweh is the
referent of is supported by the use of this noun in Dan 8:25, where Yahweh is referred to as
the , the Prince of princes. BDB reads as a reference to God.196 On all
of this, Joyce Baldwin comments that pride showed its ultimate goal in defying the Prince of
both stars and monarchs, their Creator and God.197
He magnified himself [] has been dealt with in Dan 8:9-10. Here in Dan 8:11 there is no
small amount of hubris connoted in the term. The Hiphil stem of this verb implies that this leader
set out to cause himself to be regarded as great among men, attempting to supersede the greatness
of Yahweh.
As we shall note presently [Dan 8:11b-12], one of these proto-typical leaders is
Antiochus Epiphanes. Yet, as we have repeatedly noted in the book of Daniel, these various
exemplars of a specific leader are representative of the kinds of leaders and their pretensions that
mark patterns in history. So it is here.
Accordingly, this head of state acts in such a way as to set in motion those processes that
insure his preeminence [Dan 8:11b-12]. To be sure, this politician is aiming high, seeking to
supplant the influence of God in the affairs of mankind. As Tremper Longman notes, With the
god-like pretensions of Antiochus, we also see how readily he can become a symbol [emphasis
mine] for all those who in overweening pride seek to replace God on the throne of the
universe.198
To the extent that one can speak of the evil that government brings with it, such evil is certainly
characterized by the government of a nation acting as if God did not exist. At the same time, such
a condition does not continue apart from the consent of the governed.
Seventh event: for from Him [the Prince of the host], the daily offering was removed
[ ] is introduced with a disjunctive waw [] prefixed to the
first term in the sentence, thus identifying some attendant circumstance, or more exactly, a
clarification of the steps the pretender took to insure his preeminence. 199 Furthermore, from
him is a prepositional phrase that uses a 3rd, person, masculine, singular suffix. The pronominal
suffix him is a back reference to the masculine, singular noun Prince.
The daily offering was removed [ ] is one of the events by which this
usurper of divine authority set out to ensure his preeminence.
The daily offering [] is a regularly occurring offering;200 furthermore,
denotes the daily burnt offering that was presented every evening and every morning in the postexilic temple.201 The practice recollects Exodus 29:42 and Numbers 28-29.
195 CDCH, 440.
196 BDB, 978; similarly KB2, 1353.
197 Baldwin, 157.
198 Longman, 209.
199 For this use of the disjunctive waw, see IBHS 39.2.3b; Gibson 137.
200 KB2, 1748.
201 Ibid.
44

2016
Loren Lineberry,
The Exodus passage will help us understand the purpose of the Tmd/daily offering. As noted
the Tmd was a twice daily offering; a one year old lamb offered twice each day [Exodus
29:38]. One lamb was to be offered in the morning and the other in the evening [Exodus 29:39].
Flour, oil, and wine were also part of the offerings [Exodus 29:40]. Exodus 29:42 teases out the
function of the Tmd for the worshipers: where I shall let Myself be met [or reveal Myself
to you, Niphal, imperfect, 1st, cs] to speak [ (Piel, infinitive construct)] with you
there. The same promise of the Divine Presence is made in Exodus 29:43. Commenting on the
suspension of the Tmd in Daniel, Jacob Milgrom notes, The unbroken continuity of the
Tmd in the Temple was reassuring to Israel and its cessation a traumatic calamity (Dan 8:1113; 11:31; 12:11).202
In Dan 8:11a, the pretender sought to supersede the supremacy of Yahweh; in this sentence [Dan
8:11b], the presumptuous seizure of Divine authority is clarified in terms of attempting to bar His
Presence in the worship lives of His people. Russell summarizes the import of the Tmd this
way: its very continuity was a sacred symbol expressing the very soul of the people, except to
the Jews it was much more besides. It was a visible expression of their religion and a sign of
their unbreakable loyalty to their God [emphasis mine].203
Was removed [ (Hophal, perfect, 3rd, ms)] is written in the Hiphil stem but should be
read in the Hophal stem. The Hophal represents the subject, the Tmd in this case, as the
undergoer of a causative situation involving an event, removal in this case.204 The meaning of
in the Hophal is: to be lifted away, to be taken away, or to be skimmed off in the sense
of to be selected.205 Firmage, Milgrom, and Dahmen write concerning the Hophal of in
Dan 8:11, the meaning lift, take, gave rise to the meaning take away, remove. 206
The upshot is this: the daily offering was removed meant that this regime made a concerted
effort to eliminate the presence of God among His people by denying access to an age old
liturgical practice. Evidently, there are regimes that emerge in the course of human history that
are militantly opposed to Gods presence in the lives of citizens. Interrupting the daily services
that celebrated His Presence would be a way of disrupting His sanctification of them and of
suspending their consecration to Him. What this political leader intended to do, therefore, was to
dissolve the communion between Yahweh and His people. There is an example at hand of this
kind of desecration.
In 1 Maccabees 1, we read about a case of withdrawal of daily offerings by Antiochus
Epiphanes. As we read, we can easily appreciate the political aim this man had in abolishing
various forms of worship. We read from 1 Maccabees 1:41-46:
(1:41) Then the king wrote to his whole kingdom that all should
be one people, (1:42) and that all should give up their particular
customs. (1:43) All of the Gentiles accepted the command of the
king. Many even from Israel gladly adopted his religion; they
sacrificed to idols and profaned the Sabbath. (1:44) And the king
sent letters by messenger to Jerusalem and the cities of Judah; he
202 W.F. Albright, D.N. Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible, Leviticus 1-16 by Jacob Milgrom
(New York: Doubleday, 1991), 457.
203 Russell, Daniel, 145.
204 IBHS 28.1b.
205 KB2, 1205.
206 E. Firmage, J. Milgrom, U. Dahmen, , in TDOT, vol. XIII, 407.
45

2016
Loren Lineberry,
directed them to follow customs strange to the land, (1:45) to

forbid burnt offerings and sacrifices and drink offerings in the
sanctuary, to profane sabbaths and festivals, (1:46) to defile the
sanctuary and the priests.
1 Maccabees 1:41 makes the political aim clear: to unify the nation around a religious
faith of this kings choosing. Indeed, all of the Gentiles and many of the Jews adopted his
religion. The point is that this example from the life of Antiochus Epiphanes gives the rationale
for such deprivation among regimes that are threatened by citizens who believe in and diligently
follow after God: politics!
Summary statement: and so, his sanctuary place was discarded [
(simple waw, Hophal, perfect, 3rd, ms)] is a summary statement for Dan 8:11.207
His sanctuary place [ ] is a genitive construction. The genitive is probably
an attributive genitive, communicating that the place is characterized by His sanctuary.208
Place [] is used in the construct form thirteen times in the Hebrew Bible to refer to: [1]
the fixed abode of Yahweh, [2] the house of God, and [3] Mount Zion. In seven of these
occurrences, /place is used in construct with /dwelling to refer to Yahwehs
fixed or established dwelling place in heaven.209 Additionally, is used once with a first
person suffix to refer to Yahwehs dwelling place.210 Finally, once is used in construct
with /sanctuary to refer to the dwelling place of Yahweh. 211 Twice, is used
in construct with /throne to refer to the support/foundation of Yahwehs throne, 212 and
once for the foundations of the earth.213 Once each, is used in the construct with a
pronominal suffix to refer to the house of God,214 and Mount Zion.215 The upshot is that His
sanctuary place [ ] refers to the sanctuary of God, or the Temple, the
rebuilding of which would be completed about 515 BC.
Was discarded [ (Hophal, perfect, 3rd, ms)] is another Hophal stem that represents the
subject, the sanctuary place/Temple in this case, as the undergoer of a causative situation
involving an event, violation. Obviously, the sense of the line is that the insignificant horn
discarded in some sense Yahwehs sanctuary place.
Discard [] in the Hophal stem has the following ranges of meaning: [1] to
physically throw an object, [2] to dispose of a corpse, [3] to be cast upon (as a figure of
dependence), [4] to be cast away (in abhorrence), and [5] to be cast down (in disposal).
Kohler-Baumgartner go with to be overthrown (meaning to be violated). 216 Holladay opts for
207 For the simple waw prefixed to a perfect aspect verb used to signal a summary statement, see
Gibson 84 c.
208 IBHS 9.5.3a; GKC 128 p; Gibson 35 c.
209 1 Kings 8:39, 43, 49; 2 Chronicles 6:30, 33, 39; Psalm 33:14.
210 Isaiah 18:4.
211 Daniel 8:11.
212 Psalms 89:14; 97:2.
213 Psalm 104:5.
214 Ezra 2:68.
215 Isaiah 4:5.
216 KB2, 1530.
46

2016
Loren Lineberry,
to be overturned, tumbled down.217 The net effect is that suggests that the sanctuary
place was cast down in a metaphorical act of disposal, drawing upon sense [5], above.
Eighth event: that is, the host will be given over along with the daily sacrifice by iniquity
[ ] is a line that clarifies the discarding of the
sanctuary place in the previous line.218
Admittedly, this eighth event is difficult to translate from the Hebrew. The reader who consults
more than one English translation will immediately sense the confusion this sentence presents to
the translator. The confusion concerns the meaning of , the noun, and , the verb.
The noun, , is translated as [1] army, [2] host (heavenly), and [3] the Lords
people. The verb, , is translated with [1] was arrayed, [2] will be given over, and [3]
were given over.219
As we have noted previously, has the following ranges of meaning: [1] military service,
[2] military men, troops, [3] an assembly, group, [4] heavenly bodies, stars, [5] the heavenly
entourage of Yahweh, [6] service in the cult, and [7] compulsory labor. Meaning [6] draws
attention, since the daily sacrifice is mentioned in Dan 8:12a. Thus, when the visionary affirms
that the host will be given over, he is claiming little more than that those who labor in the
service of the cult, those responsible for administering the daily sacrifice, will be given over.
The sense of the line is that those who serve in sacred places will be given over to hostile
military-governmental forces along with the daily sacrifice. On this point as it relates to
Antiochus Epiphanes, 2 Maccabees 6:11 tells us that those who sought to serve and worship in
the prescribed manner, secretly in caves, were found in the caves and burnt alive there.
Will be given over [ (Niphal, imperfect, 3rd, fm, sg)] is written in the Niphal
stem, a stem that may assume a purely passive nuance.220 Waltke and OConnor note that the
passive Niphal implies that the subject, the host/cultic servants in this case, suffer the effects of
the action, being given over, by some agent, implicit or explicit.221 As no explicit agent is
named in the action, we may infer that the agency is implicitly Yahweh. We have noted
previously in our study of Daniel that the theme of the book is Gods sovereignty over national
and international political power-players; His sovereignty would include His authority to submit
his host/servants to a time of subjugation prior to the vindication of His sanctuary and His will
for that matter.
Be given [] in the Niphal has two ranges of meaning: [1] to be given, and [2] to be
sacrificed.222 In this case, the sense of is to be handed over followed by two
prepositional phrases: /along with223 the daily sacrifice and /by means of224 iniquity.
217 Holladay, 373.

218 For this use of the disjunctive waw, see IBHS 39.2.4a; Gibson 137; GKC 142d.
219 For a survey of the options, see Collins, Daniel, 334-35.
220 J-M 51 c
221 IBHS 23.2.2a.
222 KB1, 735.
223 For in the sense of together with, see BDB, 755.
224 For in the sense of by means of, see BDB, 89-90.
47

2016
Loren Lineberry,
Iniquity [] is from a semantic field of Hebrew terms for disobedience. 225 At the very least,
the direct means of this giving over is human disobedience.
Iniquity [] has the following ranges of meaning: [1] an offense concerning property or
persons, and [2] crime in general: (a) criminal action, (b) acts that break relationships either
within the community or with God), (c) misdemeanor, (d) wantonness, (e) wrongdoing. 226 G.H.
Livingston notes that the fundamental idea of the root is a breach of relationships, civil or
religious, between two parties.227 R. Knierim also notes the breach of relationship motif in-built
within ; he writes, Whoever commits does not merely rebel or protest against
Yahweh but breaks with him, takes what is his, robs, embezzles, misappropriates it. 228 So it is
here in Dan 8:12; the proximate cause of giving over, even if permitted by Yahweh as the
Niphal implies, does not absolve this regime from personal responsibility; rather, this small
horn, this upstart Grecian political power-player is, on his own initiative and completely
unaware, acting as if a relationship with God is immaterial. The relationship between this leader
and God is thoroughly breached and the leader of Greece is content to leave it that way. Ludwig
Kohler puts the matter this way: in the final analysis, is revolt of the human will
against the divine will: men are (haters of God), Rom. 1:30.229 Thus, in
light of the severity of , there are only two options: forgiveness or judgment.
Ninth event: and so, it [feminine = horn (Dan 8:9)] will cast truth to the ground [
(simple waw, Hiphil, imperfect, 3rd, fm, sg, jussive)]. There are several
syntactical matters of import in this sentence. First, the simple waw [] relates this line to the
previous lines [probably back to Dan 8:11] logically, teasing out a consequence.230 Second, the
feminine gender written in the verb has /horn as its feminine antecedent. Third, the
verb is written as a jussive form, one of the volitional/directive forms. Both Gesenius 231 and
Joon-Muraoka232 affirm that the jussive should be read here as a simple imperfect. So it should
be. Fourth, the Hiphil stem of the verb is causative;233 if nothing else, pinning direct
responsibility for casting truth to the ground directly upon the regime.
The ranges of meaning of /cast have been discussed above [page 46]. For this sentence,
we adopt option [5] to be cast down (in disposal). The verb carries the idea of rejection, even
elimination of /truth. This activity on the part of a political power-player vis--vis
truth obviously places a fair amount of attention on what is meant by truth.
While we have argued that this kind of behavior is endemic to many political regimes in
general, the evidence from one specific instance of this sort of behavior, Antiochus Epiphanes,
helps to explain what casting truth to the ground may include. In roughly 167 B.C., 1 Maccabees
1:56-57 tells us this:
225 See Disobedience in NIDOTTE.

226 KB2, 981.
227 G.H. Livingston, , in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 2 vols, ed. R.L.
Harris, G.L. Archer, and B. Waltke (Chicago: Moody Press, 1981); hereafter abbreviated TWOT.
228 R. Knierim, , in TLOT II, 1036.
229 Ludwig Kohler, Old Testament Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1957), 170.
230 IBHS 33.4
231 GKC 109 k.
232 J-M 114 l.
233 IBHS 27.3a.
48

2016
Loren Lineberry,
The books of the Law that they found, they tore to pieces and
burned with fire. Anyone found possessing the book of the
covenant, or anyone who adhered to the Law, was condemned to
death by decree of the king.
Sadly, in many places in this world, the second sentence in the citation is all too common
and all too terrible, but, there are patterns in history. The destruction of Torah was an attempt to
terminate the influence of Israels founding document. The aim behind this termination was the
elimination, probably with no small degree of contempt, of any point of view that would
challenge the dominant political-religious perspective of Antiochus. Antiochus understood
perfectly well that the heart of the opposition to him was religious. 234 As we noted in connection
with the purging of the daily sacrifices in Daniel 8:11, the political motive behind Antiochus
opposition to Judaism was the unification of his country on his terms. There are patterns in
history, for this archetype has had many successors.
Truth [] is a noun from a semantic field of terms in the Hebrew Bible for trust.235 The
noun has the following ranges of meaning: [1] reliability, dependability, trustworthiness,
faithfulness, constancy, [2] stability (of political conditions), [3] truth, correctness (of words and
statements), [4] sincerity, honesty (of motives), and [5] genuineness or reality (of a thing). 236
BDB further subdivides as truth(meaning [3]) in this way: [1] truth as spoken, [2] truth
of testimony and judgment, [3] truth in the sense of divine instruction, and [4] truth as a body of
ethical and religious knowledge (Dan 8:12).237 Commenting on Dan 8:12, H. Wildberger affirms
that in Dan 8:12 means the truth of Judaism, with its individual legal regulations. 238
The reader may assume that the denotation of is as BDB has identified it: this
regime rejects and seeks to eliminate Gods truth, that body of revealed divine ethical and
religious knowledge, something spiritually dependable, from the national consciousness. This is
a leader of a regime that intends to eradicate and jettison objective truth in the sense of a body of
true principles, i.e. true religion239 from the public square.
The reader is advised to keep in mind the portrait of this kind of leader/regime, for in one
way or another, this kind of human governance, power that fully intends to nullify anything even
remotely divine and spiritual and biblical from the public consciousness, is the very stuff of
human governance in this hour. At the same time, we must take due note of human exemplars of
this kind of anti-God, atheistic behavior when we see it, and we see one of them in the person of
Antiochus Epiphanes [note well the block quote above]. In his regime, anyone caught even
possessing the Torah was worthy only to be eliminated; this Philistine has had many successors!
Tenth event: thus, he acted successfully [ ] is a sentence
that closes out the final consequence of Dan 8:11-12a.240 The Hebrew text has two verbs
separated by a conjunction; thus many translations read perform and prosper or words to that
234 George Foote Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the
Tannaim, vol. 1, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932), 52.
235 See Trust in NIDOTTE.
236 CDCH, 26.
237 BDB, 54.
238 H. Wildberger, , in TLOT I, 156.
240 For this use of the waw consecutive imperfect, see IBHS 32.2.2a; GKC 112 p.
49

2016
Loren Lineberry,
effect. However, the second verb [] uses a copulative waw prefixed to a perfect
aspect verb. To make a long story short, this construction may form a hendiadys, which means
representing a single complex situation [acted successfully] with two verbs [perform and
prosper].241 The hendiadys has the net effect of making the translation more forceful.
Successful [] is written in the Hiphil stem with two ranges of meaning: [1]
intransitively, to be successful, and [2] transitively, to make something a success. 242 When
/ successful is used intransitively, more often than not the passage stipulates that
Yahweh is the power behind the success.243 In four cases, the matter is stated negatively; that is,
without Yahwehs presence, there is no hope of success. 244 On two occasions, both in Daniel, the
presence of Yahweh is hinted at but not quite stated. 245 Finally, in two cases again both in Daniel,
/success is presented as a strictly human accomplishment. 246 The net effect is that,
beginning with the anti-God campaign in Dan 8:11, including anti-sanctuary interference, this
small horn with all of his antagonism and persecution succeeds admirably in what he does.
Summary
Dan 8:11-12 are clearly the climax of the paragraph [Dan 8:5-12]. The climactic point is
uniformly bad news for the people of God. Not only are there no reversals in the paragraph, quite
the contrary, the paragraph depicts unhindered success in an atheistic campaign. We noted at the
outset that this paragraph may be summarized in terms of destruction and decadence; and so it is.
Moreover, Dan 8:11-12 is a clarification of Dan 8:10, a verse that declares in no uncertain
terms the anti-God mania with this regime and its leader. The key point in all of this is this: Dan
8:10, 11-12 portray a kind of regime that the author of the vision intends that Daniel, and we the
readers, understand. This kind of regime is a model of untold numbers of regimes that will
follow until the end of human history. Fair enough; but an even larger matter is this: by authoring
this vision, heaven is telling Daniel, and us as well, that God is sovereign over even these kinds of
political thuggery, appearances to the contrary. While, in the exposition, we have alluded to
Antiochus Epiphanes as an exemplar of this kind of regime, this thug has had many successors!
There are patterns in history.
Dan 8:11a describes the main element in the pattern: remove God from the scene and
replace Him; this pretender magnified himself as far as the Prince of the host. As we noted at
the time, this head of state acts in such a way as to set in motion those processes that insure his
preeminence [Dan 8:11b-12]. To be sure, this politician is aiming high, seeking to supplant the
influence of God in the affairs of mankind. However, the end game for this kind of regime,
including that of the exemplar in Dan 8:1-12 Antiochus Epiphanes, is to replace God with the
worship of the state and its leader.
Dan 8:11b reveals another aspect of the pattern: dissolve the Presence of God among His
people; this aspirant to Gods throne removed the daily offering. As we noted, the Tmd
was intended to enhance the Presence of God in the lives of His people; interrupting the daily
241 IBHS 32.3b.
242 KB2, 1026.
243 Genesis 39:2; 1 Kings 22:12, 15; 1 Chronicles 22:11, 13; 29:23; 2 Chronicles 7:11; 14:7;
18:11, 14; 20:20; 31:21; 32:30; Psalm 1:3.
244 2 Chronicles 13:12; 24:20; Jeremiah 2:37; 32:5.
245 Daniel 8:24; 11:36.
246 Daniel 8:12, 25.
50

2016
Loren Lineberry,
services that celebrated His Presence would be a way of disrupting His sanctification of them and
of suspending their consecration to Him. What this political leader intended to do, therefore, was
to dissolve the communion between Yahweh and His people.
Dan 8:12a displays a third component of the pattern: prevent Gods servants from
representing His interests; this claimant to Gods position in the minds and souls of men that the
host (of servants) was given over along with the daily offering. The prime exemplar of this kind
of regime in Dan 8:10-12, Antiochus Epiphanes, actually burned alive those who sought to honor
the Sabbath in the traditional way. But, the reader is advised that the principle in Dan 8:12a may
be adhered to in ways other than cremation. As we noted in Daniel 3 and 6, the state may simply
pass a law that effectively prevents Gods servants from representing His interests.
Dan 8:12b discloses the final piece of the pattern: deny at all costs that there is a
revealed Word from God; this candidate for divine status casts truth to the ground. In a
nutshell, truth, , is the body of revealed moral and ethical guidance in Gods Word. For
the Jews in Daniels entourage, this would have been Torah. The destruction of Torah was an
attempt to terminate the influence of Israels founding document. The aim behind this
termination was the elimination, probably with no small degree of contempt, of any point of view
that would challenge the dominant political-religious perspective of the regime.
Reflection
In the western democracies, the United States in particular, that piece of the pattern
adhered to by all of those who idolize politics, those who seek to purge society from any divine,
transcendent word from God, is alive and well. It is a cultural and legal given in the United
States these days that the Word of God must be severed from any contact with cultural norms or
government policy. Our culture has more or less determined that it is better off without the
interference of the demands of Gods Word. But, there is a price to pay here.
Richard John Neuhaus argued several decades ago that the vacuum created by the
removal of the Judeo-Christian consensus will be filled by something else; the idea is that
cultures abhor a vacuum. Neuhaus argument has bloomed to full flower: When the
democratically affirmed institutions that generate and transmit values are excluded, the vacuum
will be filled by the agent left in control of the public square, the state. In this manner, a perverse
notion of the disestablishment of religion leads to the establishment of the state as church
[emphasis mine].247
This is where we are today in the democracies, certainly in the United States; government has
become a bootlegged religion. One wonders just when the dark shades of totalitarianism will be
pulled down. The right to vote, living in a democracy, is no guarantee whatsoever against the
perversions of even soft totalitarianism. Never forget that Germans voted and elected Adolph
Hitler! The myth that It cant happen here is just so much whistling in the graveyard!
C.
Daniel overhears an angelic conversation [Dan 8:13-14]

speaking;
8:13a
Then I heard a holy one
247 Richard John Neuhaus, The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997; reprint), 86.
51

2016
Loren Lineberry,
8:13b then, another holy one

said to that certain one
who had been speaking:
8:13c How long the vision
concerning the daily
sacrifice and the appalling iniquity,

displacing both the sanctuary
and the host,
a crushing to pieces?

8:14a Then, he said to me:

8:14b For evening-morning,

two thousand and three
hundred;

then, the sanctuary will be vindicated.
Syntactical outline
Dan 8:13a-b
First event [chronological succession after 8:10-12]: Then, I heard a holy one
speaking; then another holy one said to that certain one who had been speaking:
Dan 8:13c
The question: How long the vision concerning the daily sacrifice and the
appalling iniquity, displacing both the sanctuary and the host, a crushing to pieces?
Dan 8:14a
The response: Then, he said to me:
Dan 8:14b
The answer: For evening-morning, two thousand three hundred; then the
sanctuary will be vindicated.
Paragraph sense
(i)
[Next event in the sequence of events in the vision] Then, I heard a holy one speaking;
(ii)
[Next event after (i)] then, another holy one said to that certain one who had been
speaking:
(iii)
[Opening of the heavenly dialogue] How long the vision concerning the daily sacrifice
and the appalling iniquity,
(iv)
[Clarification of (iii)] displacing both the sanctuary and the host,
(v)
[Further clarification of (iv)] a crushing to pieces?
(vi)
[Closing of the heavenly dialogue] Then, he said to me:
(vii)
[Answer to (iii)] For evening-morning, two thousand and three hundred;
(viii) [Consequence of (iii-vii)] then the sanctuary will be vindicated.
We noted above that from Dan 8:5-12 the picture in the vision is uninterruptedly bleak;
there are no reversals for the small horn, indeed he succeeds unhinderedly; until we get to Dan
8:13-14. For in this brief paragraph, the theme is that God vindicates Himself. We see here a
complete reversal of fortune, thanks to the sovereign Lordship of Yahweh. The sanctuary was
treated by the regime in Dan 8:10-12 pretty much as it has been handled by its many successors
with contempt; regarded as a tool to be used in the furtherance of power politics. But, the days
52

2016
Loren Lineberry,
are numbered for those kinds of desecrations. The sanctuary will be restored to its rightful place
and Gods purpose vindicated.
The paragraph centers on the angelic dialogue [Dan 8:13c-14c]; accordingly, we may
read this dialogue as a revelation delivered in a speech by an angel or angels in this case. 248
As revelation, the paragraph permits us to conclude the following: from the standpoint of earthly
history, it often seems as if evil is simply having its way. To be sure, the events to which Daniel
has just referred have the appearance of being irreversibly successful. But, the appearances of
history are tempered by the certainties of heaven. The expectation of divine supervision now
comes to the fore.
Dan 8:13-14 Then I heard a holy one speaking; then another holy one said to that certain one
who had been speaking: How long the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the appalling
iniquity, displacing both the sanctuary and the host, a crushing to pieces? Then, he said to me:
For evening-morning, two thousand three hundred; then the sanctuary will be vindicated.
Dan 8:13a is not presented as some sort of interruption in the flow of the paragraph;
rather the syntactical function of the waw consecutive imperfect verb then I heard is to
signal the next event, chronologically, in the paragraph. 249
A holy one [] features a cardinal numeral [] attached to an adjective
[]. The cardinal numeral is used in this phrase to make the adjective expressly
indeterminate in the sense of the indefinite article a.250
Holy one [] is an adjective functioning as a substantive or an abstract noun.
is from a semantic field of terms for consecration.251 Dan 8:13 is the first appearance of the
adjective in Daniel.
Holy one [] is derived from the root ; the etymology of this root is still up in the
air. W. Kornfeld concedes that most interpreters concur with Baudissins thesis that the likely
presence of biconsonantal root forms prompts us to understand the qd [] in qd [] as
having the basic meaning separate, sunder.252 Kohler-Baumgartner share in the tenuousness
of the etymological data, but concede that if the etymology of is as Baudissin claims, then
the basic idea of the root is to set apart. 253 The upshot is that setting apart may be taken as a
working definition of .
Holy one [], in the adjective form, has the following ranges of meaning: [1] holy,
commanding respect, awesome, treated with respect, removed from what is profane (used of both
things and persons), [2] holy, singled out, consecrated for (priests and times/occasions), and [3]
holy ones (heavenly beings).254 It is obviously the case that sense [3], holy ones in the sense of
248 For this genre, see Collins, FOTL, Daniel, 104.
249 IBHS 33.2.1a.
250 GKC 125 b.
251 See Consecration in NIDOTTE.
252 W. Kornfeld, , in TDOT, vol. XII, 523.
253 KB2, 1072.
254 Ibid., 1066-67.
53

2016
Loren Lineberry,
heavenly beings, is in play in Dan 8:13. It is clear, then, that Dan 8:13a puts us in the world of
angels.
The question is raised by one of the angels: How long the vision concerning the daily
sacrifice, and the appalling iniquity, displacing both the sanctuary and the host, a crushing to
pieces? [
]. It might be useful to break this question down into smaller bites by taking
advantage of the punctuation in the Masoretic text. Thus, we have:
how long
the vision concerning the daily sacrifice [Tmd]
and the appalling iniquity
displacing both the sanctuary and the host
a crushing to pieces
With these parts isolated, lets put the question back together, respecting the syntax of the
line:
How long the vision (the main clause, a verbless
clause)
concerning the daily sacrifice and the appalling

iniquity (a clarification of the above)
displacing both the sanctuary and the host (another
clarification of the preceding line)
a crushing to pieces (the final clarification of the whole)
How long the vision [ ] is, as noted, a verbless clause. The
reader is advised to appreciate this fact, to read the text as it was written in order to value the
punch, the attention-grabbing import of these densely written words. As written, the reader is
almost compelled to think about the words for a moment.
This interrogative verbless clause contains new and given information. The given
information is the vision [ (Dan 8:1, 2)]; the new information is the question how
long? []. The thrust of the verbless clause is the front-loaded interrogative,
. The interrogative subtly implies that the unhindered successes of the regime in Dan
8: 9-12 are tethered to definite limitations. Indeed, enquires about the duration of a
state of affairs,255 and a request for information into duration implies limits.
The daily sacrifice [] has already been discussed above [see Tmd]. In Dan 8:13,
the heavenly being is probing for insight into the duration of the displacement of the Tmd.
The appalling iniquity [ ] must back reference the phrase by means of
iniquity [] in Dan 8:12a. Evidently, /appalling is a qualification of iniquity
[]. /appalling appears in Daniel here in Dan 8:13 for the first time; this initial
appearance is not unintentional, for it gives a hint of the fuller picture of /appalling
events later in the book [Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11. At this point, rather than focusing on the gory
details of /appalling to come later, lets simply grapple with the word itself.
255 Van der Merwe 43.3.2 (iii).

54

2016
Loren Lineberry,
Appalling [] is found within a semantic field of terms for desolation.256 in

the Qal stem has the following ranges of meaning: [1] to be uninhabited, be deserted (of
settlements), [2] to be removed from contact (with other people), and [3] to shudder, be appalled
(in the face of persecution or conviction of a crime). 257 The texts in this last range of meaning
offer some interesting parallels to .
Appalling [] is linked with hissing [] in 1 Kings 9:8.258 Hissing is this passage
is associated with warding off evil, where the hissing or whistling is an expression of
mockery.259 In this case, the appalling character of what is witnessed motivates passersby to
ward off evil by mockery.
Appalling [] is used in antithesis to exaltation [] in 2 Chronicles 7:21.
Exaltation [] in this case means something that is higher.260 The nature of the
polarity between appalling and exaltation is probably of the overlapping variety; that is
overlapping opposites all have an evaluative [emphasis mine] polarity as part of their meaning:
one term is commendatory [exaltation in this case] and the other is deprecatory [appalling in
this case].261
Appalling [] is used in Job 17:8 in parallel with excite oneself []. The verb,
, is written in the Hithpoel stem, which means to be aroused. 262 The verb seems to
imply excitement, agitation, and being disturbed.263
Appalling [] is used in Jeremiah 2:12 in parallel with two verbs, horrify [] and
be devastated []. The first term, , means in Jeremiah 2:12 to have bristling hair,
to shudder.264 CDCH adds to shudder with horror.265 Be devastated [] in Jeremiah
2:12 probably means something like be amazed, be astounded. 266 JPS translates be utterly
dazed.267
Appalling [] is used in Jeremiah 18:16 in parallel with shaking the head

[ ]. H. Ringgren affirms that shaking the head is a figure of speech for showing
pity.268 The juxtaposition of with makes perfectly good sense: that
which is appalling is the occasion for the emotional response of pity.
256 See Desolation in NIDOTTE.
257 For the sense of appall, see Leviticus 26:32; 1 Kings 9:8; 2 Chronicles 7:21; Job 17:8;
Isaiah 52:14; Jeremiah 2:12; 18:16; 19:8; 49:17; 50:13; Ezekiel 26:16; 27:35; 28:19; Daniel 8:13;
9:27; 11:31; 12:11.
258 The collocation of with is also found in Jeremiah 19:8; 49:17; 50:13.
259 KB2, 1656.
260 KB1, 832.
261 D.A. Cruse, Lexical Semantics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995; reprint), 208.
262 CDCH, 316.
263 KB1, 802.
264 KB2, 1343.
265 CDCH, 439.
266 BDB, 351.
267 JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1999).
268 H. Ringgren, , in TDOT, vol. IX, 272.
55

2016
Loren Lineberry,
Appalling [] is used in Jeremiah 18:16 with the noun derivative of , . This

noun means a horrific, atrocious event.269 The noun connotes the subjective sensation of
horror; there is shock, dismay, and deep consternation in the noun; thus it is a fitting comment on
the verb, .
Appalling [] is associated with trembling [] in Ezekiel 26:16. Obviously,
denotes an intense emotional experience as manifested by trembling. The cause of the
trembling is made clear in the context; in the case of Ezekiel 26:16, the appalling and trembling
emotions are the consequence of Yahwehs judgment.
So, where does all of this leave us? The parallel terms are most instructive for adding
flavor and sense to appalling. Most of the links conjure up the emotional component in
. That is, an appalling circumstance may be accompanied by agitation []; one
would expect that an appalling event would arouse feelings of distress and tension. Moreover, an
appalling event may be associated with being horrified [] and dazed []; again, it
would be in the nature of an appalling incident that it should provoke sensations of revulsion and
alarm, as well as the sense of being psychologically stunned and bewildered. Beyond that, an
appalling affair would almost naturally stimulate a sense of sorrow, of mournfulness [
]. Furthermore, an appalling episode would be, by nature, an atrocity, an outrage, a
vicious barbarism []. Finally, one would not be surprised to expect physical
manifestations [] of the emotional trauma of some appalling circumstance.
Appalling [] events are distressful and worrisome; they are horrifying and
shocking, stunning and bewildering; they leave one mournful and grieved; finally, the appalling
experience is a barbarity, an atrocity.
The appalling iniquity [ ] is, as we noted above, a back reference to the
assault on God, the will of God, and the servants of God detailed in Dan 8:10-12. The iniquity
[] that was explicated in Dan 8:12a amounted to a breach of relationship, a thorough
breaking with God. So it is here, this small horn, this upstart Grecian political power-player is,
on his own initiative and whether aware or not, acting as if a relationship with God is immaterial.
is revolt of the human will against the divine will: this man is a hater of God; and its
effects are appalling: distressful, worrisome, horrifying, shocking, stunning, bewildering,
mournful, grieving, barbarous and atrocious.
The appalling iniquity [ ] is an sortie against God and everything God
represents; it is an onslaught against Gods sovereignty in human history, an elbowing out of the
way the Lord of history, a denial and an utter rejection of His will for mankind as well as His
presence within it. Moreover, the point should not be missed by the reader of Dan 8:13 that the
designer of this outrage against God is a head of state; a man intent on defining his regimes and
his nations ultimacies, its moral legitimations, its meaning, its purposes, its point of moral and
ethical reference, its values and its community in terms of the state, the counterfeit worshiping
assemblage of his day. The appalling iniquity is philosophically grounded in the following:
everything within the government; nothing outside the government; and nothing against the
government.
This appalling iniquity is the thrust of this verse and the reader should note well its
characterization of atheistic regimes; this Grecian forerunner has had many successors. One
269 KB2, 1553.
56

2016
Loren Lineberry,
specific example is hinted at in the book of Daniel, our old friend Antiochus Epiphanes. His
contribution to the appalling iniquity is justifiably infamous.
To begin with, 1 Maccabees 1:54 sets the time and the date for us of his appalling
iniquity:
Then, on the 15th day of Kislev [December], of the one
hundred forty fifth year [167 B.C.], they erected an appalling
sacrilege on the altar of burnt offering.
The nature of his appalling iniquity is related in 2 Maccabees 6:2:
Not long after this, the king [Antiochus Epiphanes] sent an
Antiochian senator to compel the Jews to forsake the laws of
their ancestors and no longer live by the laws of God; also to
pollute the temple and to call it the temple of the Olympian
Zeus, and to call the one in Gerizim the temple of Zeus-theFriend-of-Strangers, as did the people who lived in that
place.
Displacing both the sanctuary and the host [ (Qal, infinitive
construct)] recalls the report contained in Dan 8:11b-12a [see the notes there]. The clause is
essentially a clarification of the vision concerning the daily sacrifice and the appalling iniquity.
Crushing to pieces [ (noun, ms, sg)] is a final clarifying or possibly
summarizing statement attached to recap the entire, sad, affair [Dan 8:11-12, 13]. The noun,
, is from a semantic field of terms for subjugation.270 The noun has the following
ranges of meaning: [1] a trampling place, or [2] trampled ground. 271 Sense [1] best fits the use of
in Dan 8:13c. Still, there are nuances of that should be noted.
The noun is used by Yahweh in a judgment speech concerning Israel, His vineyard in Isaiah
5:5. Specifically, after Yahwehs judgment, the once fertile vineyard will be reduced to
, trampled ground. In this passage, takes the form of being reduced to
uselessness.272
The noun is used once more by Isaiah in another judgment setting. Assyria is the rod of
Yahwehs wrath sent to trample [] like mud in the streets. In this passage,
is linked with terminology that suggests contempt [mud in the streets].
Enough has been said about the nuances of /crushing to make one further
point: words not only refer to things, they also evoke emotional reaction.273 It seems that in this
instance, the contextual environment in which is used warrants appreciating the
connotative meaning of . That is, this Grecian kingpin is hell-bent on eradicating each
and every vestige of God from his regime [see Dan 8:9-12]. Thus, the contextual environment
270 See Trampling, treading, subjugation in NIDOTTE.
271 CDCH, 245.
272 See also Isaiah 28:18 for a similar usage of .
273 On these points, see Eugene Nida, The Theory and Practice of Translation (Leiden: E.J.
Brill; published for the United Bible Societies, 1974), 56-98.
57

2016
Loren Lineberry,
suggests that means a bit more than a trampling place or trampled ground.
Accordingly, implies eradication into uselessness.
Crushing [] is an eliminationist summary term categorizing this regimes agenda: it
intends to eradicate [] God from His place of sovereignty over history [Dan 8:10a, 11a],
from His presence among the His people [Dan 8:11b], from His servants [Dan 8:12a], and from
the impact of His word [Dan 8:12b]. In this regime, and in many since up to the present hour, the
public square is cut off from any association with transcendence, with any Yahwistic point of
reference, with any transcendent truth to which the regime and its citizens are accountable. But,
as noted previously, cultures abhor a vacuum; and the vacuum in Greece, and other places as
well, will be filled by the regime, effecting crushing [] competing worldviews.
Summary
Dan 8:13c is the pivotal utterance in Dan 8:13, asking the crucial question: How long?
The question, however, veils a premise: this appalling regimes time is limited, and it is limited by
the regions of heaven, by Yahweh and His entourage. In asking How long? the heavenly
speaker is implying that term limits are superimposed on this regime! As we noted in Dan 2:21,
so it is here: Yahweh deposes kings and Yahweh appoints them; Dan 8:13 is a footnote on that
premise. Regimes ascend and regimes fall; the very summit of worldly power, be it military
power, technological power, economic power, human power, the very pinnacle of human might
simply means that the descent has already begun. What this regime with all of its grand plans for
expansion and conquest and power, what this regime ignored was that human history does not
move from the bottom, up; but rather from the top, down; this regime was oblivious to the crucial
question: How long?
A second decisive matter emerges in Dan 8:13: the political elites maniacal drive to
supplant God. In this case, this Grecian regime sets out to abolish both sanctuary and host; it
sets its sights on an appalling iniquity; and all of this in the name of the regime, in the name of
casting aside the ignorant and impractical mythology of Yahweh and His host and His word, and
birthing the religion of the state. In other words, this Grecian forerunner was establishing a
totalitarian regime; he has had many successors. For our purposes in the 21 st century, all we need
do is strike out the old names and replace them with the names we read in the paper every day; it
all comes down to the same thing: If the state ordering of society is to exclude those institutions
that generate and bear values, then that state must be prepared to assume the burden of meeting
the human yearning for a life that is not value-less. The totalitarian welcomes the burden. 274
Judging by how the rest of the story pans out in the rest of the chapter, the regime is not up to
bearing the burden of giving meaning to life.
Dan 8:14 Then, he said to me: For evening-morning, two thousand three and hundred; then,
the sanctuary will be vindicated.
The question was: How long? The answer is: For evening-morning, two thousand and three
hundred. The consequence of the answer is: then, the sanctuary will be vindicated.
274 Neuhaus, 157.

58

2016
Loren Lineberry,
As the reader surely knows, this verse is problematic to say the least. For the sake of
honoring the text as we have it, it may be advantageous to lay out the verse respecting the
punctuation in the Masoretic text.275
8:14a : Then he said to me: (pause)
8:14b : for evening-morning, (pause)
: two thousand and three hundred;
(midpoint)
8:14c : then the sanctuary will be vindicated. (end)
The translation I have provided is very wooden; but it has the advantage of presenting the
text in all its maddening ambiguity. At the same time, there are some translation quibbles that we
must point out, for, some English versions insert words into the text that simply are not there.
First, some translations render Dan 8:14b with evening and morning; there is no
coordinating conjunction [] in the passage. For those versions that insert the conjunction, not
every translation signals the insertion by italicizing and.
Second, some translations render Dan 8:14b with two thousand three hundred days.
Again, those English Bibles that insert days refrain from signaling the insertion by italicizing
days.
Then, he said to me [ ] is a clause that signals an answer to How
long? The interesting point here is that the interpreter directs his answer not to the heavenly
being who asked the question, but rather to Daniel. Baldwin notes that Daniel was asking the
same question.276
The time limit, implied in the original question [How long?], is offered thus: [1]
: for evening-morning, and [2] : two thousand
and three hundred.
For evening-morning [ ] is a prepositional phrase introduced by a
temporal use of the preposition, . The prepositional phrase is temporal, but it is a temporal
phrase with a nuance. That is, the preposition used here and translated for implies a period of
time up to a limit. The prepositional phrase thus demarcates a fixed time period. 277 The reader is
advised to note this nuance very carefully. That is, whatever the rest of the sentence may imply,
the drift is to point to a fixed period of time up to which these events occur. They go no further;
there are divinely fixed limits on this regimes reign of terror.
Evening-morning [ ] translated two nouns in sequence with nothing between them;
thus, we have woodenly translated evening-morning.
Evening-morning surely refers to the daily offering in Dan 8:11. If evening-morning
is read in a comprehensive sense, then the two nouns signify one day; if, however, they are read in
275 As noted in the Introduction, the Masoretic punctuation marks are not inspired in the way
the text itself is inspired. Yet, these accents do present the reader with an early tradition of how
the verse was divided into units.
276 Baldwin, 158.
277 For this use of the preposition, , see IBHS 11.2.12b and note 102 on the same page; see
also Van der Merwe 39.18.2.
59

2016
Loren Lineberry,
an individual sense, then the two nouns signify half days. On the first reading, we have 2300
days and on the second, 1150 days. The sad fact of the matter is that, as written, we simply
cannot determine which.278 Tremper Longman advises caution in date fixing; Longman
observes279:
In the final analysis, we cannot be dogmatic. The number is
given not so much so that those who read Daniels sixth-century
prognostications in the second century could compute when the
suffering would stop as much as to assure them that God had
things under control. Furthermore, the number indicates with
certainty that there would be a stopping point to the persecution,
even if that number could not be computed into a definite date in
the calendar as they knew it.
We have noted often the fact that there are patterns in history. Indeed, Daniel 8, with its attackrise-become great-be exceedingly powerful-fall-face ruin pattern makes this clear. But the reader
should note that with Daniel 8:14a, we see patterns in history viewed, not from the bottom up, but
from the top down. The meta-pattern is the sovereignty of God, an authority that will allow
political power-players of every age to go just so far in pursuing their lust for dominance and no
further.
Then, the sanctuary will be vindicated [ (Niphal, waw consecutive
imperfect, 3rd, ms)] is syntactically the next event [temporal succession] in the sequence of
events, an event that is subordinate to Dan 8:13.280 However, both the words in the sentence and
its form seem to express a consequence;281 it is thoroughly reasonable to infer that in a passage
that sets limits the consequence attendant upon those limits should be announced.
Will be vindicated [] is written in the Niphal stem; the Niphal stem is probably
passive; that is, the subject the sanctuary is in the state of experiencing the effects of
vindication by an implicit agent.282 Dan 8:14c is the only place in the Hebrew Bible where we
find these terms /sanctuary is/will be vindicated. Furthermore, Dan 8:14c is
the only place in the Hebrew Bible where we have /vindicate in the Niphal followed by
any noun; and Dan 8:14c is the only use of /vindicate in the Niphal stem in the Hebrew
Bible. What this suggests is that the sanctuary will be vindicated [ ] is
somewhat unique to the Hebrew Bible.
Vindicated [] in the Niphal stem means: to be brought to justice, justified. 283 The sense
of the verb is to be brought into its right state.284 B. Johnson concurs, noting that in
Dan 8:14 means shall be restored to its rightful state. 285 Some English versions seem to follow
the Septuagint and translate cleanse. Both the Old Greek and Theodotion render with
278 Commentators are divided on this point; for a fair overview of the positions, see Young, 17375.
279 Longman, 209.
280 For the subordination implicit in the waw consecutive imperfect, see IBHS 33.2a.
281 Ibid., 33.2.1b.
282 Ibid., 23.2.2a.
283 KB2, 1003.
284 CDCH, 374.
285 B. Johnson, , in TDOT, vol. XII, 250.
60

2016
Loren Lineberry,
, a Greek verb that denotes moral and religious cleansing. 286 This reading
may be an over-refinement; the passage seems more clearly to point to restoration rather than
ritual cleansing. Come what may, the sovereign God vindicates Himself!
Summary
We noted on Dan 8:13c that this verse presents the crucial question; if so, then Dan 8:14 provides
a perplexing, ambiguous answer. The haziness in Dan 8:14 cannot, indeed must not, be resolved
by inserting words into the text that are not there. The sum of the matter is that this may well be
one of those occasions in the Old Testament where a speaker is intentionally vague.
G.B. Caird makes a compelling case for biblical writers making use of deliberate
ambiguity.287 Caird cites Jesus use of deliberate ambiguity to provoke his hearers into thought
about ultimate questions.288 So it is in Dan 8:14; that is, the speaker does not intend that the
listener/reader use the answer to set dates; rather, the speaker is deliberately vague on the timing
of this regimes blight upon human governance in order to force the listener/reader to grasp the
larger truth: this regimes time on earth is limited by God. In a nutshell, this meta-perspective is
what is vital in Dan 8:14.
The fact of deliberate ambiguity in Old Testament and New Testament literature leads us to
another issue that we might as well face: misusing numbers in biblical apocalyptic, such as Daniel
and Revelation, to set precise dates or to approximate the timing of future events. The reader is
advised to be extremely cautious in this matter of date setting or predicting the timing of future
events. There are reasons for caution.
First, we have already mentioned the fact of deliberate ambiguity. In the case of Dan
8:14, we insist that the intentional ambiguity is in the service of making a far more important
topic sharp and well-defined: this regime is on a tether, a divine restraint to be sure, but a tether
all the same. We have noted that biblical apocalyptic has two functions: [1] to engender hope and
[2] to pinpoint the behavior of the faithful in trying times. In Dan 8:14, hope is created with the
information, ambiguous as it may be, that this regime is tethered to divine term limits.
Second, we have specific kinds of literary devices in apocalyptic. Accordingly, we do not
read apocalyptic, like Daniel or Revelation, as we would read the Wall Street Journal; the latter
communicates with precision, with names and dates and places and events; the former
communicates metaphorically, in symbols, in ambiguities, in figures, and with all manner of
imagery. There are outcomes here.
There are two kinds of word usages in the Bible: literal and non-literal. The reader is
advised to always keep this simple distinction in mind, especially when reading apocalyptic.
This principle is particularly valuable when reading numbers in apocalyptic literature. The
principle is this: in apocalyptic literature, expect that numbers are symbolic, not literal. For
example, when we read time, times, or half times in Daniel 7 surely we should expect some
form of symbolism is being communicated in these maddeningly imprecise words!
286 W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, F. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature; second edition, revised and augmented by F.W. Gingrich and
F.W. Danker from Walter Bauers fifth edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 387
[hereafter abbreviated BAGD].
287 Caird, 102-08.
288 Ibid., 106.
61

2016
Loren Lineberry,
Accordingly, there are two cautions to keep in mind when reading the numbers in biblical
apocalyptic: [1] these numbers are not intended to be used as a calendar;289 and [2] these numbers
are not intended to be used to pinpoint the end of human history within our lifetime.290 This
second caveat is especially vital. We are, in 2016, living through very turbulent times: the
economy of China is weakening, thus sending Wall Street into a frenzy; North Korea conveys the
impression of testing nuclear weapons; Iran has been moving toward joining the worlds nuclear
club for about a decade; the moral climate in the United States continues to nosedive; natural
disasters are visited upon the planet somewhere almost weekly. To put matters bluntly, it is
mouthwatering to read the tealeaves and see that the end of human history is near, even within
our lifetime.
Such doomsday hoopla fleeces many believers into spending money to survive the end of
days by purchasing survival programs of one sort or another. Recently, one such program, pushed
on the internet, came to my attention. The author of this scheme affirms that our church and
government are engaged in a massive cover up. The cover up involves keeping a warning
hidden in the book of Revelation from seeing the light of day. [As an aside, if I am any judge of
it, many of Revelations modern expositors and teachers are doing a masterful job of seeing to it
that the message of Revelation doesnt see the light of day!] So, heres the prediction, based upon
Revelation 18 [as best as I can determine just what this author is claiming]: a single Russian
super-EMP [electromagnetic pulse] bomb will destroy 293 million Americans before January 1,
2017. Now, there is a way out: for $49.99 one can purchase a program called Survive the End
Days. I am not making this up!
The message of Dan 8:14 is not for the purpose of creating calendars or setting dates or
preparing for the doom-filled signs of the end of human history. Point blank: that stuff is for the
nave, the gullible, for the biblically ignorant, for persons who want nothing to do with the
survival plan that God does offer! Never forget, and weigh and consider this carefully, when a
stone hewn from a mountain without human help crushed Nebuchadnezzars statue in Daniel 2,
the only survival plan endorsed by God was offered free of charge: membership in the kingdom
of God. Dan 8:14 tells us that along the way to the full realization of the kingdom of God, many
repressive, violent, enslaving, malignant forms of human governance will emerge in the course of
human history; but, each and every one of them fulfills some purpose of God and each and every
one of them is tethered to the divine term limits. As we shall see in Daniel 9, the time will come
when [1] the covenant betrayal is ended, [2] sins are sealed up, [3] the guilt of iniquity is wiped
away, [4] everlasting righteousness is brought near, [5] the vision is sealed with approval, and [6]
a Most Holy one is anointed [Dan 9:24]. As we shall see when we get to Dan 9, Dan 9:24 is the
only survival program that really matters, for, its the only survival program that really survives!
III.
A divine interpreter steps forward to grant Daniel understanding [Dan 8:15-19]

A.
Daniels confusion regarding the vision [Dan 8:15]
8:15a
watching the vision;
While I, Daniel, was
289 Longman, 212.

290 Ibid., 213.
62

2016

understanding,

B.
Loren Lineberry,
8:15b I was searching for
and behold: standing before me,
someone with an appearance of a male.
An interpreter is enlisted to grant Daniel understanding [Dan 8:16-17]

8:16a Then, I heard the voice
of a man between
[the banks of the river] Ulai;

8:16b and he spoke up and said:

Gabriel, explain to
this man the vision.

8:17a Then, he approached beside my
standing place,

and as he approached, I was
seized by a sudden
fear,

and so I fell upon my face;

8:17b then, he said to me:

Understand son of man,

that the vision concerns an end
of a period of
time.
C.
Daniels response [Dan 8:18-19]

8:18a Now, while he was speaking to me,

I became stunned with
my face to the ground;
8:18b and yet, he touched me,

and helped me stand upon my
feet.
8:19a Then he said:

I am here to make known to
you,

that which will happen
in the repercussions of
the indignation;

8:19b to be sure, after an appointed time an
end.
63

2016
Loren Lineberry,
Syntactical outline
8:15a
Circumstantial information: while I, Daniel, was watching the vision
8:15b Event one: I was searching for understanding

8:15c Event two: and behold: standing before me
Clarification: someone with an appearance of a male.
8:16a Event three: Then I heard the voice of a man
Spatial locator: between [the banks of the river] Ulai;
8:16b Event four: and he spoke up and said:
Directive: Gabriel, explain to this man the vision
8:17a Event five: Then he approached beside my standing place,
Circumstantial information: and as he approached I was seized by a sudden
fear
Event six: and so I fell upon my face
8:17b Event seven: Then, he said to me:
Directive: Understand son of man
Content of understanding: that the vision concerns an end of a period of time
8:18a
Circumstantial information: Now, while he was speaking to me

Event eight: I became stunned with my face to the ground
8:18b Event nine: and yet, he touched me

and helped me stand upon my feet
8:19a Event ten: Then he said:
Gabriels speech: I am here to make known to you
Content: that which will happen in the repercussions of the indignation;
Clarification: to be sure, after an appointed time an end.
64

2016
Loren Lineberry,
Paragraph sense
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
(xi)
(xii)
(xiii)
(xiv)
(xv)
(xvi)
(xvii)
(xviii)
(xix)
(xx)
(xxi)
(xxii)
(xxiii)
(xxiv)
(xxv)
[Background information for (ii)]: While I, Daniel, was watching the vision
[First event in sequence]: I was searching for understanding []
[Next sequential event after (ii)]: and behold: standing before me
[Clarification of (iii)]: someone with an appearance of a male
[Next event after (iii)]: Then I heard the voice of a man
[Spatial locator of (v)]: between [the banks of the river] Ulai
[Next event after (v)]: and he spoke up and said:
[Speech/directive of (vii)]: Gabriel, explain [] to this man the vision
[Next event after (vii)]: Then he approached
[Spatial locater of (ix)]: beside my standing place
[Background information for (ix-x)]: as he approached
[Clarification of (xi)]: I was seized by a sudden fear
[Next event after (ix)]: and so I fell upon my face
[Next event in sequence after (xiii)]: then, he said to me
[Speech/directive of (xiv)]: Understand [] son of man
[Content of (xv)]: that the vision concerns an end [] of a period of time
[Background on (xvi)]: Now, while he was speaking to me
[Next event after (xiv)]: I became stunned
[Spatial locator]: with my face to the ground
[Next event after (xviii); contrast]: and yet, he touched me
[Next event after (xx)]; and helped me stand upon my feet
[Next event after (xxi)]: Then he said:
[Speech/content of (xxii)]: I am here to make known [] to you
[Content of speech (xxiii)]: that which will happen in the repercussions of the
indignation
[Clarification of (xxiv)]: to be sure, after an appointed time an end []
The reader will observe the four verbs for understanding that are highlighted in the
paragraph summary. This tells us that the paragraph sense is about understanding. Indeed,
words for understanding [/] basically frame the paragraph from beginning [Dan
8:15b] to end [Dan 8:19a]. Additionally, another term figures prominently in the paragraph, end
[]. Presumably, the paragraph is about understanding something about what is referred to
as end. In this regard, we must insist that neither appearance of /end has a definite article;
therefore we must be cautious about over-reading the paragraph as discussing the end in the
sense of the end of human history. Both the grammar and the context force us to read
understand an end in terms of the regime that is the focus of Dan 8, beginning with Dan 8:10,
not the end of human history, a regime with divinely imposed term limits within human history.
65

2016
Loren Lineberry,
The first major section of the paragraph concerns Daniels confusion regarding the vision
thus far.
Dan 8:15 While I, Daniel, was watching the vision; I was searching for understanding, and
behold: standing before me someone with an appearance of a male.
I, Daniel [ ] appears six times in the Hebrew text of the book of
Daniel.291 In each of these, the use of the first person personal pronoun seems to involve a kind of
psychological focus, conveying an element of strong emotional heightening with deep selfconsciousness.292 Montgomery observes that the use of the name is emphatic, signaling a return
to self-consciousness.293 While experiencing the vision, Daniel was deeply aware of his
perplexity, his bewilderment, his confusion over what he was experiencing in the vision. The
reader must appreciate this almost universal response of Daniel to the visions he receives in his
book: they muddy the waters rather than clearing them for him.
Event one: searching for understanding [ (Piel, waw consecutive
imperfect, 1st, cs)] is the only appearance of this collocation of verb and noun as direct object in
the Hebrew Bible.
Searching [] is written in the Piel stem, the stem in which most often
appears in the Hebrew Bible. In the Piel stem, has the following ranges of meaning: [1]
to discover, to find, to search for [with ], to seek; [2] to attempt to do something; [3] to try to
possess, to demand, to require, to request, to endeavor, to strive for; [4] to search for, to call on, to
consult.294 G. Gerleman affirms that in Dan 8:15 has an emotional nuance: to strive
after something, be busy, be concerned.295 S. Wagner reads in Dan 8:15 in a more
figurative sense, noting that Dan 8:15 can be translated to meditate about the meaning (of a
vision).296 Meditate sounds a bit benign for a context that includes such emotional reactions
as being stunned with my face to the ground [Dan 8:18a]. Gerlemans observation concerning
the emotional component in the usage of here is to the point: there does seem to be
contextual warrant for imparting a sense of disquiet in Daniels bewilderment as he searches for
understanding.
Understanding [] is from a semantic field of terms for comprehension and
understanding.297 The ranges of meaning for are: [1] the act of understanding, [2] the
faculty of understanding, [3] the object of understanding, and [4] understanding personified. 298
Obviously, the use of in Dan 8:15 involves the act of understanding. Michael Fox notes
that refers to the exercise of the faculty of intellectual discernment and interpretation
in Dan 8:15.299
291 Daniel 8:1, 15; 9:2; 10:2, 7; 12:5.
292 IBHS 16.3.2e.
294 KB1, 152.
295 G. Gerleman, , in TLOT I, 252.
296 S. Wagner, , in TDOT, vol. II, 234.
297 See Comprehension, understanding in NIDOTTE.
298 BDB, 108.
66

2016
Loren Lineberry,
Searching for understanding [ ], then, means that Daniels emotional

turmoil, brought on by the images in the vision, compel him to intellectually discern the meaning
of the vision to this point.
Event two: and behold: standing before me, someone with an appearance of a male
[ ].
And behold [] translates a Hebrew expression that underlines the immediacy of
the experience.300 The juxtaposition of 8:15c with 8:15b shows that Yahweh does move to relieve
the bewilderment that the vision has brought to Daniel.
Someone with the appearance of a male [] is a simile that may be
woodenly translated the like of (=as it were) an appearance of a man. 301 A simile functions in
Biblical Hebrew to present a point of comparison between one thing and another. Furthermore,
when two things are compared, they are not to be considered alike in all respects. 302 Fair
enough; so what is the point of comparison here? The use of the noun appearance []
suggests that the point of comparison is perceptual;303 appealing to Daniels sense of sight, the
heavenly being reminded Daniel of a human male. At the same time, as Slotki points out, he
recognizes that it was not a real human being. 304
The second major section of the paragraph involves the enlistment of an interpreter to grant
Daniel understanding [Dan 8:16-17].
Dan 8:16-17 Then, I heard the voice of a man between [the banks of the river] Ulai; and he
spoke up and said: Gabriel, explain to this man the vision. Then, he appeared beside my
standing place, and as he approached, I was seized by sudden fear, and so I fell upon my face;
then he said to me: Understand son of man, that the vision concerns an end of a period of time.
Gabriel [] is a proper noun that appears twice in the Hebrew Bible, here
and in Dan 9:21. The name means man of God.305 An angel of the same name appears in the
New Testament, announcing the birth of John the Baptist [Luke 1:19] and Jesus [Luke 1:26]. The
common denominator in the work of Gabriel in both testaments is instruction. Gabriel is the
first time in the Bible that an angel is mentioned by name.
Explain [ (Hiphil, imperative)] is written in the Hiphil stem. The Hiphil stem in this
instance is surely causative,306 with the following ranges of meaning: [1] to make someone
understand something, [2] to explain something to someone, and [3] to teach something to
someone.307 The meaning of the imperative in Dan 8:16 is explain something not understood at
the moment.
299 W.F. Albright, D.N. Freedman, The Anchor Bible, vol. 18A , Proverbs 1-9, Michael V. Fox
(New York: Doubleday, 2000), 30.
300 See IBHS 40.2.1b; Lambdin 135.
301 For this translation, see BDB, 453.
302 Caird, 145.
303 Ibid., 145-46.
304 Slotki, 68.
305 KB1, 176.
306 IBHS 27.1e.
307 KB1, 122.
67

2016
Loren Lineberry,
Event five: then he approached beside my standing place, and as he approached, I was seized by
a sudden fear [ ] is an event that singles
out Daniels immediate reaction: terror.
I was seized by sudden fear [ (Niphal, perfect, 1st, cs)] is written in the Niphal
stem. This stem in this case is surely passive in nuance;308 furthermore, the Niphal may also
convey a resultative nuance, where the Niphal describes the state in which the subject Daniel in
this case finds himself produced by the action of the verbal root. 309 The agent of this panic
attack was the approach of Gabriel.
The main verb, , is used in only the Niphal and Piel stems in the Hebrew Bible. The verb
is found in a semantic field of terms for terror.310 In the Niphal, the verb, , means to be
gripped by a sudden fear.311 Holladay follows suit with to be overtaken by sudden terror. 312
Van Pelt and Kaiser note that is used to express the terror of a lesser individual who
stands in the presence of a greater individualoften times a human being before a

numinous being.313 Driver simply notes that at the approach of the celestial being Daniel is
terrified.314
Event six: and so I fell upon my face [ (Qal, waw consecutive
imperfect, 1st, cs)] is a sentence that teases out the net effect of Daniels terror.315
Fall upon the face [ ] is a phrase that is used eighteen times in the Hebrew
Bible, all in the Qal stem. For the most part, the collocation communicates: [1] reverence and
awe in the presence of Yahweh,316 [2] humility or respect before another human,317 [3] reverence
and awe before the ark,318 [4] humility/terror before an angel of Yahweh, 319 and [5] a figure of
human death.320 It would certainly seem that when the collocation is used in reference to either
Yahweh or an angel, there are elements of profound humility, acute and sincere wonder, deep
self-effacement, overpowering self-contempt, in other words, no small amount of sheer awe and
unworthiness. There is certainly nothing casual or familiar about Daniels response to being in
the presence of deity.
308 J-M 51; Lambdin, 177.

309 Lambdin, 177.
310 See Terror in NIDOTTE.
311 KB1, 147.
312 Holladay, 45.
313 Miles Van Pelt and Walter Kaiser, Jr., , in NIDOTTE.
315 For this use of the waw consecutive imperfect, see IBHS 33.2.1a.
316 Leviticus 9:24; Numbers 16:22, 45; 20:6; 1 Kings 18:39; Ezekiel 1:28; 3:23; 9:8; 11:13.
317 Numbers 16:4; Joshua 7:10; Ruth 2:10; 2 Samuel 9:6; 1 Kings 18:7.
318 Joshua 7:6.
319 Judges 13:20; Daniel 8:17.
320 1 Samuel 17:49.
68

2016
Loren Lineberry,
Event seven is the final event in this paragraph: then he said to me, understand son of man, that
the vision concerns an end of a period of time [
].
Understand [ (Hiphil, imperative)] is written in the imperative mode; it is less a
command and more an invitation to Daniel to come to grips with what has so far baffled him. 321
That an invitation is given from a superior to a subordinate suggests some graciousness and
respect on the part of Gabriel toward Daniel.
Son of man [] is a phrase that ought not to be over-read; the phrase simply points
to Gabriels recognition of Daniel as a mere mortal.322
Concerns an end of a period of time [] is a prepositional phrase consisting of the
preposition, , prefixed to a genitive construction, (noun, ms, sg) (noun, ms, sg).
The reader will note that there are no definite articles to be found in the prepositional phrase.
Accordingly, those English versions that translate the time of the end should at least place the
in italics, thereby indicating that the is not in the original text. Montgomery notes that literally
the phrase reads the vision (is) for time of end. 323 In the Septuagint tradition, Theodotion also
translates literally: , for time of end.
The problem with placing articles in the phrase is illustrated by the translation of PterContesse and Ellington: Frequently the end of the world will be the most natural equivalent
for .324 We suspect that reading as the end of the world does violence
to the context, which focuses more upon the time limits placed upon the small horn [Dan 8:13-14]
in real time.
In Biblical Hebrew, definiteness is normally signaled by prefixing an article [] to the
noun. It is the case, however, that a noun may be read as definite if the use of that noun has
acquired the value of a proper noun.325 Waltke and OConnor comment more fully on this last
point, discussing a noun that is intrinsically definite, noting that intrinsically definite nouns tend
to have a unique referent.326 Among the unique referents are: [1] terms for God, [2]
cosmological elements, [3] earthly institutions, [4] earthly place names, and [5] certain titles
given to humans.327 My point is that it is difficult to conceive of /end as a noun identifying
a unique referent; but one must assume that this is exactly what a major number of English
translators actually do. The Guide doubts that /end qualifies as a noun with a unique
determinate. Therefore, we translate an end of a period of time.
A period of time [] translates a noun that is found within a semantic field of terms for
time, and is the most common word for time in the Hebrew Bible. E. Jenni affirms that
has a limited range of meaning: does not refer to temporal duration or to an extended
period of time, but to some definite point in time or period of time. 328 Furthermore, when used
321 For the Hebrew imperative as invitation, see Van der Merwe 19.4.2.d.
322 BDB, 9.
324 Rene Pter-Contesse and John Ellington, A Handbook on the Book of Daniel (New York:
United Bible Societies, 1993), 220.
325 Van der Merwe 24.4.1 (ii).
326 IBHS 13.4a
327 Ibid., 13.4b.
328 E. Jenni, , in TLOT II, 953.
69

2016
Loren Lineberry,
with a preposition as it is here, locates an event at a definite point in time. 329 Indeed, in
the case of used with the preposition , the construction indicates the moment of an
activity.330 T. Kronholm concurs on this point, noting that the construction defines the time or
period of an action or event.331 The upshot is that in this construction signals a period time.
End [] is a noun that is from a semantic field of terms for end, cessation, outcome.332
The noun has the following ranges of meaning: [1] end, limit, cessation, [2] time, era, age, period,
moment; appointed time, due season, and [3] end, extremity, utmost border, boundary.333
Kohler-Baumgartner render the phrase time of the end. 334 We conclude that /end, in
Dan 8:17c carries the sense of end or cessation: cessation of a period of time.
Finally, is a construct relationship; in essence, in a construct chain, the
second term, /end, modifies or restricts335 the first noun, /time, in some way.
More specifically, /time may be characterized in terms of an /end.336 More
woodenly, this attributive genitive would usually be translated end-time; but to the modern
English reader, this translation may have eschatological implications that I doubt the Hebrew of
Dan 8:17 has in mind. It is better to translate more clearly with: an end/cessation of a period of
time. This reading fits the context, since in Dan 8:19b, Gabriel will point to an appointed time
an end [].
Summary
In some ways, Dan 8:16-17 serve to provide an introduction to the full interpretation of the vision
in Dan 8:20-26. That is, we are introduced to a representative of the real power behind the ram,
the he-goat, and the small horn in the person of a heavenly being, Gabriel. Moreover, we are
introduced to the fact that the time limits indicated in Dan 8:14 [evening-morning 2300] do
indeed portend an end of a period of time, that is the time of 2300 evening-mornings, which
come to cessation. Along the way, we get an insight into the depth of Daniels spiritual poverty
when he falls before Gabriel in terror.
Gabriel is the first heavenly being named in the Bible; Gabriel is among those heavenly
beings who speak for the overseer, Yahweh, and explain what Yahwehs sovereignty over national
and international political power-players means to these tyrants. Indeed, Gabriel will come on the
scene in Dan 9:21 and explain the future of human history and the place of the Messiah within
that history. Thus, the introduction of Gabriel is a prelude to a deeper and more mysterious
account we get in Dan 10:13, 21 of Michael, a kind of guardian of the people of God. To make a
long story short, all of this angelology tells us this: the key to earthly history is to be found in
heavenly events. The meaning of history is to be found beyond history and above history in the
realm of spiritual being.337
329 Ibid.
330 Ibid., 954.
331 T. Kronholm, , in TDOT, vol. XI, 440.
332 See End, cessation, outcome in NIDOTTE.
333 CDCH, 399.
334 KB2, 1119.
335 Lambdin 71.
336 IBHS 9.5.3b.
337 Russell, Daniel, 200.
70

2016
Loren Lineberry,
In one way or another, the heavenly spokesperson is intent on telling Daniel that the havoc that
this small horn imposes upon people is restricted. That is, in Dan 8:14, the speaker tells Daniel
that this regimes mayhem will last evening-morning two thousand and three hundred.
Whatever that really refers to, this much is plain: this terrible regimes moment in the sun is finite
and limited. Then, in Dan 8:17c, the speaker reinforces the limitations heaven places on this
regime by affirming that the vision depicting its vileness concerns an end of a period of time.
Here, period of time is code for evening-morning two thousand three hundred. Finally, in the
next paragraph, both evening-morning two thousand three hundred and a period of time are
clarified as an appointed time. The upshot is that Gods sovereignty over these political thugs
means that they are on a leash; they are tethered; they are restrained by the power and forces of
heaven; i.e., Yahweh!
Moreover, this brief paragraph gives us a glimpse into Daniels spirituality; Daniel is
deeply moved to sincere humility, acute and heartfelt wonder, deep self-effacement, in other
words, no small amount of sheer awe and unworthiness. There is certainly nothing casual or
familiar about Daniels response to being in the presence of deity.
Finally, before the interpretation proper, we are presented with Daniels response to all of
this heavenly speaking thus far [Dan 8:18-19].
Dan 8:18-19 Now, while he was speaking to me, I became stunned with my face to the
ground; and yet, he touched me, and help me stand upon my feet. Then, he said: I am here to
make known to you that which will happen in the repercussions of the indignation; to be sure,
after an appointed time an end.
These two verses depict the prophets state of mind, his emotional reaction to the vision
as well as the promise of further insight into the vision. Again, we notice the striking and
dramatic effect of the visionary experience on Daniel.
Event eight: I became stunned [ (Niphal, perfect, 1st, cs)] is written in the
Niphal stem in the perfect aspect; the verb appears seven times in the Hebrew Bible, all in the
Niphal stem. The verb is found within a semantic field of terms for sleep. 338
Stunned [] has the following ranges of meaning: [1] to sleep deeply and [2] to be dazed,
stunned.339 The verb is used in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q424 [
(recounting to one who slumbers, one who is stupefied [] in spirit]. In this
instance, is used in sense [2] above: dazed, stunned, stupefied. What is more, since the
verb occurs only seven times in the OT and always in the Niphal, any conclusions about the stem
should be tentative. That said, given the meaning of the term in Dan 8:18, the reader might
cautiously understand the Niphal of in the sense of an ingressive-stative Niphal,
describing Daniel coming to be a particular state,340 virtual stupefaction in this case; in other
words, Daniel seems to have lost consciousness.
With my face to the ground [ ] is a prepositional phrase functioning as a
spatial locator. This precise collocation [ (noun, fm, sg, directional ) (noun,
pl, construct, 1st, cs, suffix)] is found only in Daniel in the Hebrew Bible [Dan 8:18; 10:9, 15].
338 See Sleep in NIDOTTE.
339 KB2, 1191.
340 IBHS 23.3c.
71

2016
Loren Lineberry,
The directional indicates the direction toward which an action is aimed. 341 Overall, the
entire phrase is used to signal respect and awe as indicated in similar terms in Dan 8:17a.
Event nine: and yet he touched me [ (Qal, waw consecutive imperfect, 3rd, ms)]
is translated with a contrastive nuance.342 The sense of 8:18a-b is that Daniel expressed reverent
awe [Dan 8:18a] and yet Gabriel touched him [Dan 8:18b]. The verb implies simply that Gabriel
physically touched Daniel in order to raise him to his feet. Evidently, it is the touching and the
raising that restore consciousness to Daniel.
Event ten is the final event in this sequence of events in the paragraph; event ten is Gabriels
initial speech to Daniel, declaring just what Gabriel intends to do.
I am here to make known to you [ (Hiphil, ptc, ms, sg, construct, 2nd, ms,
suffix) (particle/interjection, 1st, cs, suffix)] is a collocation [particle () +
participle ()] that appears only twice in the Hebrew Bible, here and Jeremiah 16:21. In
both cases, the collocation announces the speakers intention to instruct. Indeed, the particle,
, serves to focus attention on the utterance that follows it, 343 in this case Dan 8:19-26.
The upshot is this: the use of the interjection with the participle points to the immediacy of the
situation.344 The net effect is that Gabriels immediate purpose is to let Daniel know the
significance of the vision. The participle that is used is in the Hiphil stem, indicating that Gabriel
will cause Daniel to grasp the relevance of the vision.
The gist of what Gabriel intends to communicate to Daniel is unpacked in the remainder of Dan
8:19.
That which will happen [ ] is punctuated with a tipchh,
suggesting a slight pause. The verb, , means take place, happen.345
In the repercussions of the indignation [ ] is a prepositional phrase; this
is the only place in the Hebrew Bible where this precise phrase occurs.
The repercussions of the indignation [ ] is a genitive construction.
The lead word, , has either a spatial meaning: hind part, most remote, or a temporal
meaning: end, outcome, final end, result, or following period, future. 346 KohlerBaumgartner opt for end, outcome in Dan 8:19. 347 Among the time nuances, CDCH adds,
consequence, end, result, future.348 BDB also renders in terms of time: [1] latter
part or actual close, [2] the end or ultimate issue of a course of action.349 Andrew Hill offers
aftereffects for .350 It seems best to read in the sense of the
341 IBHS 10.5b.
342 For the waw consecutive imperfect used to signal contrast, see Van der Merwe 21.1(ii); see
also IBHS 33.2.1d.
343 Van der Merwe 44.4.
344 For the use of the interjection with a participle to stress the here-and-nowness
of the situation being depicted with these forms, see Lambdin 135.
345 Holladay, 79.
346 KB1, 36-37.
347 Ibid., 36.
348 CDCH, 13.
349 BDB, 31.
72

2016
Loren Lineberry,
aftereffects of the indignation, or the outcomes/repercussions of the indignation. Indeed,

teasing out the outcomes/repercussions of the indignation is exactly what Gabriel does
beginning in Dan 8:23; furthermore, Gabriel once again uses in Dan 8:23,
suggesting that in Dan 8:19 anticipates / aftereffects in Dan 8:23.
The indignation [] does have a definite article, the indignation. While it is difficult to
be dogmatic about the article, we may reasonably infer that, in this case, the article is used
generically, that is the indignation [] classifies the aftereffects in Dan 8:23ff.351 GKC
connects this use of the article with the expression of abstract ideas of every kind, since they are
likewise used to represent whole classes of attributes or states [emphasis mine], physical or moral
defects, etc.352
Indignation [] is used as an abstract term to classify the aftereffects teased out in Dan
8:23ff. It may be best to sort out the ancient Near Eastern cognates of : [1] the Syriac
cognate is za`m which means attack verbally, scold; [2] the Arabic cognate is zagama which
means speak angrily; and the Old South Arabic cognate is z`m which means quarrel.353
Indignation [] is used twenty two times in the Hebrew Bible, almost exclusively of
Yahweh. When used in reference to Yahweh, appears with several terms in parallel.354
All of this, including the terms cognates, suggests that and its parallels belong in a
semantic field of terms for anger, rage, or wrath.355 Furthermore, used in Dan 8:19a as an
abstract noun to characterize the aftereffects alluded to in Dan 8:23ff, depicts these
repercussions as furious, incensed, wrathful, and indignant. This interpretation is borne out by
the use of in its verbal form in Dan 11:30.356 The verb, , has the nuance of hurl
imprecations at in Dan 11:30.357
Indignation [], therefore, is used to characterize the spirit, the frenzy, the feverishness, the
ferocity and vehemence with which the defiant king [Dan 8:23b] will carry out his vendetta
against the covenant community of God. This defiant kings warfare against the holy ones is an
all-out, uncompromising, frantic rage against God [Dan 8:25b] and the people of God [Dan
8:24b].
Many commentators affirm that Yahweh is behind the /indignation. Ultimately,
of course, He is; but, in the case of Dan 8:19 and 11:30, it seems that the emphasis falls more
upon what a single man/regime can do to denigrate God and maltreat His people. There is less
of divine curse here and much more of humanly generated scorn triggered by the kingdom of the
defiant king [Dan 8:23].358 To be sure, human antagonism has been the point in the preceding
context [8:10-12, 13-14] and will be the point in the succeeding context [8:23-25a]. Indeed,
human fury and wrath are what the vision is about.
351 For the generic use of the article, see Gibson 31.
352 GKC 126 n.
353 B. Wiklander, , in TDOT, vol. IV, 107.
354 /burning anger [Psalm 69:24; 78:49; Nahum 1:6; Zephaniah 3:8];
/rage [Psalm 102:10]; /anger [Isaiah 10:5, 25; Lamentations 2:6; Habakkuk
3:12]; /burning anger [Isaiah 30:27]; /devouring fire [Isaiah 30:27];
/fire of My fury [Ezekiel 21:31; 22:31].
355 See Anger, rage, wrath in NIDOTTE.
356 [he will become enraged at the holy covenant].
357 KB1, 276-77.
358 For this thought, see Collins, Daniel, 339.
73

2016
Loren Lineberry,
To be sure, after an appointed time an end [ ] is a clause that

syntactically signals a divine confirmation [].359 GKC affirms that can signal the
absolute certainty [my emphasis] with which a result is to be expected. 360 Thus, the translation
to be sure.
After an appointed time an end [ ] is a verbless clause; we prefer not to flatten
out the clause by inserting a verb in order to preserve the attention-grabbing force of the sentence.
At the outset, we must remember just what Gabriel is referring to here: the aftereffects of the
human fury and wrath instigated by the defiant king [Dan 8:23]. On contextual grounds, the
reader is cautioned about reading into an end a reference the the end of human history. One
thing at a time; Daniel intends to tell us about our antagonists throughout history, before he tells
us about historys end.
After an appointed time [] is a prepositional phrase. The use of the
preposition, , signals a temporal in syntactical function. Indeed, the preposition that is used
here may signal a terminal point in time of some process.361 This process the human aggression
mentioned above has a terminal point, after it has run its course.
Appointed time [] is the depiction of a terminal point for the situation in the context.
has the following ranges of meaning: [1] a place for meeting, an assembly point, [2] a
meeting, assembly, [3] agreed time, appointed time, and [4] a festival time, time of festivity. 362
Provisionally, sense [3] seems to fit best in Dan 8:19. BDB concurs, translating in Dan
8:19 with appointed time.363 We may conclude that points to a time fixed by God,
not necessarily a fixed date.364 Goldingay translates, at a set moment, an end will come; 365 he
further notes concerning that it is the notion of designating [emphasis mine] rather
than that of time which is essential to .366 Joyce Baldwin summarizes the thrust of Dan
8:19, the question was how long God would allow His earthly sanctuary to be trampled on, and
Daniel could be sure there was a time appointed for the end. 367
Summary
Dan 8:18-19 serve to pave the way for the fuller interpretation of the vision [Dan 8:20-26] by
Gabriel. These verses focus on [1] the effect of the vision on Daniel and [2] the time limit
imposed upon the indignation.
The effect of the vision, to this point at least, has been debilitating; Daniel is both stunned
and deeply humbled. In the first case, the effect of the vision was to render him near to a state of
unconsciousness; in the second case, he was deeply disturbed with awe and reverential terror. We
have noted previously in these studies this consistent force of the numinous on Daniel. Evidently,
359 For the use of to signal a confirmatory statement, see Van der Merwe 41.3.9.
360 GKC 159 ee.
361 For this use of the preposition, , see Van der Merwe 39.11.1; IBHS 11.2.10c.
362 KB1, 557-58.
363 BDB, 417.
364 On this last point, see Michael V. Fox, A Time To Tear Down and A Time To Build Up (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 197n12.
365 Goldingay, 195.
366 Ibid., 216.
367 Baldwin, 159.
74

2016
Loren Lineberry,
the gulf that exists between fallen men, like Daniel, and the perfections of heaven generate this
unique conflict; imperfect men simply cannot approach the perfections of heaven without being
stunned into terror-saturated awe.
Why does the author juxtapose Daniels stunned reaction with Gabriels no nonsense
announcement? We may only hazard a guess; but it would seem that the holy and perfect and
mighty power that could impose time limits on a political regime [Dan 8:19] spills over into
Daniels life as well. He too is circumscribed, is confined and restrained within his own human
limits in the presence of such holy and heavenly power.
Finally, Dan 8:19 is the introductory and prevailing song of grace that introduces the
melancholy and distressing events of Dan 8:20-25. In this longer passage, human political
history marches on, covering hundreds of years; but, ultimately the political and human
regression yields a most dangerous and onerous harvest: a defiant king who will not rest until
he has toppled God and Gods people. The political thug will attack God and subvert the lives of
His people; he will destroy and deceive; but, his time of rapacity is limited: after an appointed
time and end [Dan 8:19]. This note of grace, of Gods overruling and superseding power,
drapes the horror of Dan 8:20-25 with mercy in the form of restraint.
IV.
The interpretation of the vision [Dan 8:20-26]

A.
The ram [Dan 8:20]

B.
8:20a
The ram which you saw,

the double-horned one;
8:20b kings of Media and Persia.
The he-goat [Dan 8:21]

king of Greece;

great horn between his eyes,

C.
8:21a
The shaggy goat the

8:21b indeed, the
he the first king.
The four horns [Dan 8:22]

on the scene after it
8:22a
Now, the shattered one,

and the four that came
[means that]

8:22b four kingdoms from his
nation will come on the
scene,

but not with his power.
75

2016
D.
Loren Lineberry,
The small horn [Dan 8:23-25]

rule,

criminals reach

scene,

dreadful ruin,

and will act with

succeed by his power,

magnify himself,

security, he will

of the Prince of

will be shattered.
E.
8:23a
Then, in the latter part of their

just before those who act as
full measure;
8:23b a defiant king will come on the
8:24a
skilled in double-dealing.
And so, his might will be strong,
but not by means of his own strength,
seeing that he will bring about
and so, he will be successful
effect;
8:24b he will destroy the mighty,
and holy people.
8:25a Furthermore, owing to his cunning,
he will cause treachery to
while in his own mind he will
and in the midst of careless
destroy many;
8:25b indeed, he will rise up as a foe
princes,
but without human power he
The interpreters final word [Dan 8:26]

morning and the

8:26a
Now, the vision concerning the
evening,
which was told,
it [is] true;
8:26b but you, keep the vision secret,
for [it] concerns many days.
We shall postpone our syntactical outline for what is obviously the dnouement of Dan
8:20-26, that is Dan 8:23-25, the small horn or defiant king paragraph.
The genre of Dan 8:20-26 carries forward the interpretation phase of the symbolic
dream vision that constitutes the genre of Daniel 8 as a whole. Here in the interpretation we
76

2016
Loren Lineberry,
seem to have Gabriel announcing what amounts to a periodization of history in Dan 8:20-25.
That is, Gabriel divides a portion of history into a set number of periods. 368 This genre conveys a
sense of the sovereignty of God over national and international governments. We have pointed
out in our study of Daniel 2 that Dan 2:21 is probably the theme of the entire book: Yahweh
deposes kings and Yahweh appoints kings; this periodization of history in Dan 8:20-25 is simply
commentary on the books overall theme.
The theme of Dan 8:20-26 would appear to be Gods sovereign rule over the comings and
goings of specific political regimes in human history. As Psalm 72:11 says, All kings will bow
before Him and all nations will serve Him; Dan 8:20-26 is human, historical, political
commentary on Gods sovereign rule. God is at work in human history, prevailing according to
His divine and perfect will in governmental history; none can thwart His plans and it is pointless,
if not tragic, for men and nations to attempt to do so; for Yahweh is king over all the earth [Psalm
47:2], indeed God reigns over the nations [Psalm 47:8]. So it is here in Dan 8:20-26.
The period of history signified by the ram opens the periodization. As we shall see,
Gabriel identifies this regime as kings of Media and Persia.
Dan 8:20 The ram which you saw, the double-horned one kings of Media and Persia.
If the Media-Persian Empire is meant here, as it surely is, then about 200 years of human
history are represented by eight words in the Hebrew text of this verse.
This interpretation looks back to Daniel 8:3-4. In that unit, the ram is a symbol of both
power and royalty in the ancient Near East. There is both force and authority carried with the
symbol.
At the same time, we also noted the change in animal symbolism from Daniel 7 to Daniel
8. In Daniel 7, this same kingdom is symbolized by a bear; in Daniel 8, it is symbolized by a
ram. There is a reduction in the force in the symbol. Perhaps this redefinition in power is
captured with a mere eight words for 200 years of history.
Dan 8:21 The shaggy goat the king of Greece; indeed, the great horn between his eyes, that
the first king.
Shaggy goat [] appears in Dan 8:5, 8 and is an exceptionally fierce and
powerful animal; accordingly, on the power scale, the he-goat outranks the ram. 369 Still, there is a
caveat. As with the ram, so with the he-goat, we have a fading in the symbolism of power. In
Daniel 7, this nation-king was represented by the leopard, here, by a he-goat. While the imagery
of the he-goat still carries power and viciousness, this is not the level of speed and strength
implied in the symbol of the leopard. Perhaps the regression in the symbolism of power reflects
the distinction between how earth looks upon power [leopard] as opposed to heavens view of
earthly power [he-goat].
The great horn between his eyes [ ] in
Dan 8:21 is the conspicuous horn [] between his eyes in Dan 8:5. We inferred
previously that conspicuousness implied that this leader had managed to concentrate his power in
368 See Collins, FOTL, 115-16.
369 See Montgomery, 329-30; Goldingay, 209.
77

2016
Loren Lineberry,
one way or another. To the extent that the horn is a symbol of power, in this case, the horn may
be a symbol of power concentrated in a specific leader.370
Dan 8:22 Now, the shattered one, and the four that come on the scene after it [means that]
four kingdoms from his nation will come on the scene, but not with his power.
The punctuation of Dan 8:22 is as follows: there is a major line break [atnach] following
after it. In other words, Now, the shattered one, and the four that came on the scene after it is
a single unit of thought; this, in turn, implies that the rest of the line, four kingdoms from his
nation will come on the scene, but not with his power, teases out the meaning of the single unit
of thought that opens the line.
The general drift of Dan 8:22 represents the fall of the unified Grecian empire followed
by its division into four smaller and less powerful monarchies. While this verse does depict what
happened to the empire of Alexander the great, the reader is reminded that this pattern the
division of a single empire into smaller domains is a staple in human political history, including
that of Israel. There may be a larger lesson here: power that is concentrated in the hands of a
single leader [Dan 8:21] may be destined for dispersal among several leaders.
But not with its power [ ] is a line that back references the concentrated
power in Dan 8:21. The noun translated power signifies the kind of military power that can
successfully impose the will of a victor upon one who is vanquished. 371 Daniel uses this noun to
depict native ability [1:8], as well as of destructive military power [8:6-7], and even of political
power [11:6]. If the back reference in Daniel 8:21-22 is to a man like Alexander the Great, then
any of these three nuances of would apply.
The reader is advised to appreciate what is said about power [] in this phrase: power is
shaky. About the time an empire thinks it has a handle on power, power fades. Indeed, this is the
storyline of power later in the book of Daniel. In Daniel 11:6, a political leader fashions
/power on the basis of building international alliances, but it fails. In Daniel 11:15, a
politician does not have enough /power to maintain his hold on his government. Then,
finally, in Daniel 11:25, a politician does not have the /power to withstand internal scheming
against him. Power in the hands of men is unstable; it deserts a leader or a nation for that matter
just when it is needed the most. There are patterns in history.
We now come to the crucial section of Dan 8:20-26, the account of the defiant king in
Dan 8:23-25.
Dan 8:23-25 Then, in the latter part of their rule, just before those who rebel reach full
measure; a defiant king will come on the scene, skilled in double-dealing. And so, his might will
be strong, but not by means of his own strength, seeing that he will bring about dreadful ruin, and
370 At the time, we suggested Alexander the Great as a leading candidate. But the reader is
cautioned, again, not to leave the imagery of 8:21 with Alexander; he has had many successors
and will continue to be emulated.
371 See the notes on /power in Daniel 8:6.
78

2016
Loren Lineberry,
so he will be successful and act with effect; he will destroy mighty ones and holy people.
Furthermore, owing to his cunning, he will cause treachery to succeed aided by his power, while
in his own mind, he will magnify himself, and in the midst of careless security, he will destroy
many; indeed, he will rise up as a foe of the Prince of the princes, but, without human power, he
will be shattered.
Syntactical outline
8:23
Event one future prediction: A defiant king will come on the scene [ip]
Temporal marker in the latter part of their rule
Temporal marker just before those who rebel reach full measure
Descriptive marker skilled in double-dealing
8:24-25 Events two-four backbone of a predictive discourse:

8:24
Event two prediction And so, his might will be strong [w/cons/pf]
Caveat/contrast but not by means of his own strength
Description of might seeing that he will bring about dreadful ruin
Event three prediction a series of three consequences of his might [w/cons/pf]
Consequence one and so, he will be successful
Consequence two he will act with effect
Consequence three he will destroy mighty ones and holy people
8:25
Event four prediction he will cause treachery to succeed [w/cons/pf]

Means owing to his cunning
Means aided by his power
Background note while in his own mind he will magnify himself
Event five prediction he will destroy many [ip]
Circumstantial note in the midst of careless security
Event six prediction he will rise up as a foe of the Prince of princes [ip]
Event seven prediction he will be shattered [ip]
Means but without human power
The reader will note that both the imperfect [ip] aspect verbs and the waw consecutive
perfect [w/cons/pf] aspect verbs are all future and predictive. As speech acts, therefore, all seven
events are commissive speech acts which means, and this is significant, that their point is to
commit the speaker, Gabriel, to these seven courses of action. 372
Theme
372 John Searle, Expression and Meaning (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993;
reprint), 14.
79

2016
Loren Lineberry,
The theme of this paragraph [Dan 8:23-25] is power, for power terms dominate the entire
paragraph; one might read the paragraph with this theme in mind: the consequences of power in
human hands.
In event two, the might [] of this defiant king will be strong [], but,
strangely, this is not by means of his own strength [].
In events three and four, Gabriel teases out the consequences of this regimes use of
power. To be sure, he will be successful [] and act with effect []. Then he
will destroy [] the mighty [] as well as the holy people. Finally, he will cause
treachery to succeed [], aided by his power [].
In event five, he will destroy [] many; and in event six, he will rise up as foe
[] against Yahweh.
Finally, the defiant kings power meets its match; Gabriel assures his listener, and the
reader as well, that regimes like this one are shattered, but without human power []. With
this seventh event, the paragraph [Dan 8:23-25] acknowledges the overall theme of Dan 8:20-26:
this maniacal political thug, the worst of the worst in Daniel 8, must also answer to Gods
sovereign rule over the comings and goings of human governance.
The reader might weigh and consider the theme of this paragraph in light of its predictive
structure. It would seem that this paragraph, as a series of commissives, commits Gabriel to the
truth value of the proposition that these kinds of regimes will arise throughout the course of
human history. In other words, when power is in the hands of the wrong kind of leader, the
defiant brand of leader [Dan 8:23b], then Gabriel seems to be saying that when this kind of
power is in the hands of this kind of man then these kinds of consequences will occur.
Moreover, as we go through this paragraph, we shall reference Antiochus Epiphanes as
one instantiation of this breed of the barbarous use of power. The references to Antiochus are
exemplary; Antiochus is background noise for the book of Daniel; he is a prototypical antagonist
of both God and Gods people. Indeed, the consequences of the abuse of power did not begin
with Antiochus nor did it end with him; he has had many successors.
Genre
Dan 8:23-25 is prophecy; it is promissory and predictive, envisaging the character of
many, but by no means all, forms of human governance. In the shorter term, this prophecy was
fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes; but in the longer term, it was also fulfilled by Nero, by
Domitian, by Hitler, by Stalin and by other notable tyrants who blight human governance to this
hour.
Dan 8:23 Then, in the latter part of their rule, just before those who rebel reach full measure,
a defiant king will come on the scene, skilled in double-dealing.
To begin with, we are told in Dan 8:23 that a defiant king will come on the scene.
Then, we are given two time frames: [1] in the latter part of their rule (that is the four kingdoms
mentioned in Dan 8:22) and [2] just before those who rebel reach full measure. Finally,
Gabriel gives us a description of this defiant king: skilled in double-dealing.
80

2016
Loren Lineberry,
Event one in this paragraph is this: a defiant king will come on the scene
[ (Qal, imperfect 3rd, ms)]. More literally, the sentence may
be translated: a king will come on the scene strong/defiant of face.
Will come on the scene is written in the imperfect aspect, signaling simple futurity; the
statement is prophetic and is a commissive, that is, Gabriel commits himself to the truth of this
promise; in other words, in matters of prophecy, heaven itself stands as underwriter of the
promise.
Defiant king [ ] describes this head of state. The descriptive
phrase appears twice in the Hebrew Bible, here and Deuteronomy 28:50.
The Deuteronomy passage is part of a larger context of blessings and curses announced
by Moses in Moab [Deuteronomy 28:1-29:1]. Deuteronomy 28:50 falls within the context of
curses that will fall upon the people of God for not listening to the voice of the Lord their God.
In Deuteronomy 28:47-57, the subject is the curse of political servitude to foreign nations, with
no specific nations identified. Being besieged in this servitude includes falling victim to a
nation, fierce of appearance or simply a defiant nation. There may be some borrowing going
on here, especially owing to the ruin [Dan 8:24a], the destruction of the holy people [Dan 8:24b],
and finally his defiant antagonism toward Yahweh [Dan 8:25b]. In a nutshell, the Deuteronomy
passage portrays a military-political head of a nation-state that is unyielding, unmoved by
considerations of equity or pity, defiant.373 Finally, there is nothing in the context of Dan 8 that
suggests retribution for breaking the covenant; it is sufficient the he is a king sent against
Israel.374
Defiant [] is an adjective that comes from a semantic field of terms for power or
strength;375 it is used twenty three times in the Hebrew Bible. The range of meanings for the
verbal form, , may help the reader appreciate the sense of the adjective; the verbs ranges
of meaning are: [1] in the Qal, to be strong, show oneself strong, to prevail, [2] in the Piel, to
make firm, establish, [3] in the Hiphil, to make bold, cause to show impudence, show boldness or
impudence, and [4] in the Hophal, be impudent, defiant. 376 Robin Wakely offers the following
ranges of meaning for the adjective: [1] strong, [2] fierce/cruel, [3] defiant, shameless, [4] hard,
stern, grim, brazen, severe, and [5] turbulent. 377 A.S. van der Woude notes that the Akkadian
cognate, ezzu, connotes wrathfulness, rage, and frightfulness. 378 He further notes that the
adjective, , in Dan 8:23 connotes the overpowering nature and vehemence of the emotions
as well as the harshness of behavior.379 S. Wagner affirms that the meaning of the root is
essentially constant: be/become/make strong, powerful, strength, power; 380 he relates the sense
of in Dan 8:23 with powerful in a menacing sense.381 Slotki says that
373 S.R. Driver, A. Plummer, C.A. Briggs, ed., The International Critical Commentary on the
Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, Deuteronomy by S.R. Driver (Edinburgh: T.&T.
Clark, 1896; reprinted by HardPress Publishing, no date), 315.
374 Collins, Daniel, 339.
376 CDCH, 318-19.
377 Robin Wakely, , in NIDOTTE.
378 A.S. van der Woude, , TLOT II, 868-69.
379 Ibid., 870.
380 S. Wagner, , in TDOT, vol. XI, 1.
381 Ibid., 3.
81

2016
Loren Lineberry,
means that this kind of leader is unyielding, merciless; 382 Goldingay assesses
in the sense of ruthless boldness;383 Baldwin notes that the adjective, , means both hard
and insolent.384
Enough has been said to draw some conclusions about the meaning of .
To begin with, this idiom has both denotative and connotative meaning. That is, the denotative
meaning of a word means that it may refer to [1] an object, [2] an abstract, [3] an event, or [4] a
relationship.385 In this case, is an idiom that is used to denote an abstract
quality of strength, of dominance, and of defiance on this leaders part. Moreover, the
connotative meaning of a word or idiom refers to the kinds of emotional reactions the word or
idiom may conjure up;386 in this case, seems to signal impudence, cruelty,
fierceness and rage on the kings part, and trigger feelings of terror or frightfulness on the part of
his victims.
Either way, Gabriel gives Daniel a forewarning on what to expect, and the angel also
gives the current reader of Daniel a tipoff: what we have here is a more or less standard
characteristic of a tyrant. As we shall soon note, Antiochus Epiphanes was indeed such a tyrant;
at the same time, this portrayal is a depiction of tyrants and totalitarian regimes for all time.
When this tyrant comes on the scene is depicted in two ways, first: in the latter part of
their rule [Dan 8:23a]. This clause is a prepositional phrase [ ].
The phrase is written with a disjunctive waw [], suggesting background material germane to
the first event.387 The drift of the background information is to temporally position the arrival of
this fierce ruler during the close of the governmental activity of the four kingdoms mentioned in
8:22b. This temporal information is further elucidated with another bit of background
information in the next clause.
Before turning to the next clause, we may, tentatively, suggest that Yahwehs sovereignty
is being hinted at here. The interest on the temporality of the defiant ones appearance suggests
that the timing of his appearance was less than accidental; it was coordinated at the beginning as
it would be at the end [Dan 8:19b, 25b] by Yahweh.
When this tyrant comes on the scene is depicted in a second way: just before those who
rebel reach full measure. This clause is an infinitive clause that temporally positions the action
in 8:23a before that in 8:23b [the arrival of the defiant king]. 388 The grammar of this clause
features the infinitive just before reach full measure followed by the subject of the
infinitive clause, the articular participle those who rebel. The upshot is this: the defiant king
will emerge onto the scene just before the rebellious activities of those leaders mentioned in Dan
8:22b reach full measure. Here also, the reader may reasonably infer that Yahweh once more is
382 Slotki, 70.
383 Goldingay, 217.
384 Baldwin, 160.
385 Nida, 56.
386 Ibid.
387 For the disjunctive waw [] signaling offline, background material, see IBHS 39.2.3b and
Gibson 135.
388 For the prefix on an infinitive used to signal an event just before the action in the main
verb, 8:23b in this case, see Van der Merwe 20.1.5(ii).
82

2016
Loren Lineberry,
acting behind the scenes. Additionally, the temporal line may imply that the defiant king is cut
out of the same cloth, ethically, morally, spiritually, as the leaders mentioned in Dan 8:22b. In
other words, the defiant king is in the lineage of these impious heathen leaders.
Those who rebel [ (definite article, Qal, participle, ms, pl)] is written as an
articular Qal participle of the root ; this precise construction appears four times in the
Hebrew Bible [Isaiah 53:12; 66:24; Ezekiel 20:38; Daniel 8:23]. In the case of Dan 8:23, the
plural participle seems to comprise all in the class of ; thus, the article is generic in
function, pointing to a general class of persons/activities. 389
The root, , comes from a semantic field of terms for disobedience. 390 The range of
meaning for is as follows: [1] in the Qal stem: (a) to break with, either God or one
another, (b) to break away from, (c) to behave as a criminal, to be disloyal; and [2] in the Niphal
stem: (a) to suffer revolt, to endure a break up. 391 CDCH offers a similar range of meaning for
: [1] in the Qal stem: to rebel against, to break away; [2] to sin against; [3] in the Niphal
stem: to be offended.392 Alex Luc affirms that normally implies willful violations by an
inferior against a superior. In biblical theology, the term refers to an open and brazen defiance of
God by humans.393
Those who rebel [], then, are those from whom the defiant king emerges in
Dan 8:22b, those who break with God, wittingly or unwittingly, in their administration of
governance and their use of political-military power.
Finally, Dan 8:23 is concluded with a descriptive marker of the defiant king: skilled in
double-dealing [ (noun, fm, pl) (Hiphil, participle)]. The participial
clause functions as a relative clause one who is skilled in double-dealing.394
Skilled [] is written in the Hiphil stem appearing with a single direct object,
, double-dealing. In this construction [Hiphil + direct object], the collocation signals
the causation of a stative event;395 in other words, this defiant king was in a position of being
well-informed396 about /double-dealing.
Double-dealing [] is from a semantic field of terms for proverb or riddle; 397 in
this context, probably tends more toward the sense of riddle. Kohler-Baumgartner
notes that means the designation of something by enigmatic allusions. 398
Accordingly, the range of meaning for is: [1] a riddle or [2] ambiguous saying
(intrigue in Dan 8:23).399 Obviously, due to the context, /double-dealing is used in
a derogatory sense; so we are well beyond simple riddles or merely ambiguous sayings. V.
Hamp notes in Dan 8:23, must be taken in a pejorative sense as wily,
389 See J-M 137 i.
390 See Disobedience in NIDOTTE.
391 KB2, 981.
392 CDCH, 370.
393 Alex Luc, , in NIDOTTE [H7321].
394 Williams 218.
395 IBHS 27.3 c.
396 KB1, 122.
397 See Proverb, riddle in NIDOTTE [H2648].
398 KB1, 309.
399 Ibid.
83

2016
Loren Lineberry,
tricky; even so, a kind of intellectual superiority of the upstart king is expressed. 400
Accordingly, BDB translates with double-dealing.401 As we have noted previously
[see page 35], one of the political leaders in history who has exhibited this trait was Antiochus
Epiphanes; specifically his rise to the throne in Syria was on the basis of a good deal of dexterity
and intrigue on the part of Antiochus for him to get his position in Syria, but that he did get the
better of the opposing elements.402
Even in light of the above, the reader is once more reminded that leaders like Antiochus
have surely preceded him and most assuredly have followed him; leaders who lay hold of power,
and retain it as well, by means of craft, cunning, guile, shrewdness; men and women who are
masters of trickery, of maneuvering, of manipulating and finessing those around them. The
reader is encouraged not to become fixated on the 6th century BC, for Antiochus has had many
successors.
Summary
Dan 8:23 is remarkable in the paragraph for introducing the key player in the paragraph: the
defiant king. Indeed, Dan 8:23functions to tease out the notable traits of this kind of leader.
First, he is in the tradition of his predecessors: just before those who rebel reach full
measure. We noted at the time that this infinitive construction was temporal, delineating the
state of affairs just before this defiant king comes on the scene. Indeed, we concluded that this
temporal phrase serves to depict the defiant king as more of the same; he is cut out of the same
piece of rebellious cloth; he is in the spiritual and moral lineage of the rebellious and impious
leaders who preceded him. The modern reader of Dan 8:23 should not wonder at the monotonous
moral sameness of leaders that emerge from the same political, spiritual, ethical, and
philosophical culture; it is an utter waste of time to expect to change men by changing culture;
rather, we are better served by changing culture through the grueling and laborious process of
changing men, one person at a time.
Second, this leader is characterized as defiant; that is, this is the kind of leader that
fully expects to prevail; he doesnt merely reign, he overwhelms; he doesnt simply administrate,
he subjugates; he doesnt purely lead, he vanquishes; he may pretend to serve, but in reality this
kind of leader subjugates. If need be, cruelty and viciousness are in his repertoire, as well as
cunning and guile; either way, these defiant ones are the power-players of the 6 th century BC
and the 21st century AD. The modern reader of Dan 8:23 must not lose sight of the fact that
defiant is a power term, a strength term; and, when all is said and done, the kind of leader
described in Dan 8:23 is alive and well in our midst to this hour: leaders who are obsessed with
power, preoccupied with gaining power, consumed with using power, passionate about
maintaining power and expanding power. Indeed, every system of human government, no matter
what the label, is a system in which some people have power over other people. Now, if Romans
13 is taken at face value, this arrangement has divine sanction; fair enough, but there is a caveat:
both the ruled and the ruler must remember what Paul said about this arrangement in Romans
13:1, There is no authority to rule except from God, and those that do exist are assigned by
God. The modern reader of Dan 8:23 will doubtless note that modern leaders are more like the
defiant king in Daniel than they are like ministers of God in Romans.
400 V. Hamp, , in TDOT, vol. IV, 322.
401 BDB, 295.
402 CAH, vol. VIII, 498.
84

2016
Loren Lineberry,
Third, this leader in Dan 8:23 is what we would call today slick; he is wily, tricky,
artful, slippery, deceitful and crafty; he is highly skilled in intrigue; he can plot with the best of
them; he is a dexterous double-dealer; in a nutshell, he is a typical power politician of any age.
Now lest we overreact and say, Surely, not all people in political life are like that, we must
confess, no, not all are. But Daniel is describing the kind of leader to be wary of, the kind of
leader to expect the worst out of; and as we have seen, the kind of leader to firmly but gently
resist when Scripture calls upon one to do so.
Dan 8:24 And so, his might will be strong, but not by means of his own strength, seeing that
he will bring about dreadful ruin, and so, he will be successful and act with effect; he will destroy
mighty ones and holy people.
This verse is sufficiently complex and important to warrant recalling its outline:
Event two prediction And so, his might will be strong
Caveat/contrast but not by means of his own strength
Description of might seeing that he will bring about dreadful ruin
Obviously, the thrust of Dan 8:24 is the main event in the verse: his might will be
strong. Then, we have two qualifying clauses that tease out this might a bit more fully: [1] not
by means of his own strength and [2] seeing that he will bring about dreadful ruin.
Moreover, Dan 8:24 has the first of five waw consecutive perfect aspect verbs that signal
the backbone of a predictive discourse:403
(1)
His might will be strong [Dan 8:24a]

(2-3) He will be successful and act with effect [Dan 8:24a]
(4)
He will destroy mighty ones and holy people [Dan 8:24b]
(5)
He will cause treachery to succeed [Dan 8:25a]
Strength, success, destruction, and treachery are the hallmarks of this kind of leader;
these traits, furthermore, are the centerpiece of the paragraph and should be attended to carefully
by the reader. Additionally, it is wise not to get bogged down in identifying specific human
referents to these traits; there have been innumerable instantiations of this kind of ruler-tyrant;
rather, the trick is to recognize them when we see them and act accordingly.
His might will be strong [ ] is predictive discourse; the sentence is a
commissive, which means that Gabriel, and heaven for that matter, stand behind the truth and the
eventuality of this prediction. What is more, the waw consecutive perfect [/will be
strong] is syntactically linked to the imperfect aspect verb in Dan 8:23b [/will come
on the scene]; both point to futurity.
Might [] is a term we have seen previously in Daniel 8 [see Dan 8:6-7, 22]; the term
is from a semantic field of terms for power or strength. 404 Robin Wakely notes that is used
of the strength of an individual in Dan 8:24.405 A.S. van der Woude affirms that the chief
meaning of may be defined as vital power, including such refinements as [1] physical
403 For this use of the waw consecutive perfect, see Van der Merwe 23.2.2 (i).
405 Robin Wakely, , in NIDOTTE.
85

2016
Loren Lineberry,
power, [2] mental power, and [3] competence, suitability, capability in later literature. 406
The reader should weigh and consider in the sense of physical power, to be sure, but owing
to the references to mental acuity in the context [double-dealing ( ,
8:23b), treachery ( in 8:25) and his own mind ( in 8:25)], the reader
might also be open to power including the sense of competence for in Dan 8:24a; therefore,
the sense might be: strength, vital power, yielding competence.
While the sense of noted above applies to all of the instantiations of this kind of political
ruler that would come down the pike, we must not ignore the Syrian incarnation suggested
repeatedly in the context: Antiochus Epiphanes. Bevan notes that he was a man with considerable
intellectual gifts; for, Antiochus was a man with a ready interest in intellectual discussion. 407
Will be strong [] is a verb from the same semantic field as . The ranges of meaning
for are the following: [1] in the Qal to be powerful and [2] to be countless, and [3] in the
Hiphil to make powerful.408 The net effect is that this kind of leader prospers in government
precisely because his vital power/competence [] proves to be overpowering [] when
faced with conflict.
Now, we have a caveat, a contrast, almost a condition: but not by his own strength [
]. The question is: to what does this caveat refer? The waters are muddy: [1] there are
those who affirm that the phrase means that behind the power of this kind of ruler is the power of
God; hence the sense becomes: but not only by his own power; while [2] Driver affirms that the
preferable sense is: not by his own power (but rather by intrigues); 409 and finally, [3] there are
those who avow that the repetition of not by his own power ( ) here and in Dan
8:22b indicates that this leaders power is less than that of the leader in Dan 8:22.
Of these three, Drivers is the weakest since power [], as we have noted, does include
mental power; and one who is a master of intrigue does expend a considerable amount of mental
power on his/her scheming.
What is more, of these three, the third option is the strongest for the simple reason that it
is supported by the context. There is no getting around the fact that this phrase
appears only in Dan 8:22, 24 in the Hebrew Bible. But, if this phrase is a back
reference to Dan 8:22, then the question is: to what effect?
Regarding Dan 8:22b, we have already noted [see page 78] that but not with his power
discloses a reduction in power from the single predecessor of the four kingdoms; we noted that
power is shaky; so, the four kingdoms, and by implication the four leaders, were not the
powerhouses that their predecessor was. That being the case in Dan 8:22, the phrase in Dan
8:24a tracks the further decline in power, if not leadership. Daniel may be suggesting here what
is all too patently obvious: human history, including especially the powerful leaders that populate
history, do not improve in quality over time; rather more often than not, the opposite seems to be
the case.
Finally, we have a description of the might [] mentioned in the opening line:
seeing that he will bring about dreadful ruin [ ]. There are two
406 A.S. van der Woude, , in TLOT II, 610.
407 CAH, VIII, 498.
408 KB1, 868.
86

2016
Loren Lineberry,
components to this sentence: [1] the main event he will bring about ruin and [2] the direct
object of the ruin: dreadful.
He will bring about ruin [ (Hiphil, imperfect, 3rd, ms)] is from a semantic
field of terms for destruction and ruin.410 appears most often in the Hebrew Bible in the
Hiphil stem; the ranges of meaning for in the Hiphil are: [1] to destroy places, annihilate
people, [2] to ruin a person, [3] to destroy oneself, of desires that destroy or consume, [4] to
overthrow a kingdom, [5] impair ones estate, [6] to mar, to trim, [7] to spoil (of Yahweh), [8] to
make a deep corrupt, [9] to behave in a corrupt way, [10] of beasts that devour, harm, [11] of
wind that is destructive, and [12] as a noun: a destroyer, raider.411
There are two senses in which /ruin may apply in the context of Dan 8:23-25. First, and
obviously, the Hiphil of may imply physical destruction, as evidenced in destruction
language in Dan 8:24b [he will destroy]. Second, and perhaps more speculatively, the Hiphil of
may imply moral corruption, as evidenced by this kind of leaders double-dealing [Dan
8:23b], his cunning [Dan 8:25a], and his treachery [Dan 8:25a]. The net effect is that the
scales are tipped in the direction of physical destruction, including the taking of human life, for
the chief meaning of in Dan 8:24a; at the same time, the reader should not ignore the
possibility, if not the likelihood that may also consist of this kind of leaders skill in
spreading moral corruption.
Dreadful [ (Niphal, participle, fm, pl)] is the direct object of this kind of
leaders ruinous blight. The use of the participle in the accusative frame describes more precisely
the manner in which the ruin takes place.412
Kohler-Baumgartner affirms that the basic meaning of this root [] is to be
different, conspicuous, curious; denotes the moment when something initiated by, or
linked with, the performer of an action becomes effective. 413 The root is used predominately in
the Hebrew Bible in the Niphal stem; accordingly, the ranges of meaning for in the
Niphal are: [1] to be treated as unusual, inappropriate, meaning to be too difficult, [2] to be
unusual, wonderful, and [3] miraculous acts.414 In the case of the use of in Dan 8:24a, the
use of with the verb /bring about ruin yields the sense: to cause unheard of
[] destruction.415 Victor Hamilton notes that can have a negative meaning in Dan
8:24 denoting unbelievable, incredible, suprarational. 416 Driver more or less concurs, noting
that signals destruction in an extraordinary degree. 417
The net effect of this description of this tyrants might [Dan 8:24a] is fairly open-ended;
that is, he will bring about dreadful ruin is rather general. In the context, however, death
figures prominently [Dan 8:24b], including pagan rulers and the people of God. Moreover, deceit
in the form of double-dealing [Dan 8:23b] and treachery [Dan 8:25a] must also be included
in the inventory of this tyrants unheard of ruin.
410 See Destruction, annihilation, devastation, disfigurement, ruin in NIDOTTE.
411 CDCH, 457.
412 GKC 118 l, q.
413 KB2, 927.
414 Ibid.
415 Ibid.
416 Victor P. Hamilton, , in TWOT.
87

2016
Loren Lineberry,
The second component in the backbone of this predictive discourse is: he will be successful
[ (Hiphil, waw consecutive perfect, 3rd, ms)]. Once more, the sentence is a
commissive; the speaker is committing himself to the truth value of this prediction; civilization
can count on this kind of despot disfiguring human history.
Successful [] is written in the Hiphil stem without a direct object; in other words,
the Hiphil is intransitive and, in this case, an internal Hiphil. The internal Hiphil retains the
causative nuance of the stem, but, as an internal Hiphil, the subject [the defiant king] works in
connection with himself as the causer of the action.418 The syntactical point is important: this
defiant king draws upon his own, considerable and malevolent, resources to spawn his ruinous
exploits. We might weigh and consider being chary of pining all malevolencies on either Satan or
even, ultimately Yahwehs permissive will; Scripture goes out of its way here by using the
internal Hiphil to pin the malevolent tail squarely on the free moral agency of the defiant king.
Successful [] is from a semantic field of terms for success and skill. 419 The verb is used 40
times in the Hiphil in the Hebrew Bible with the following ranges of meaning: [1] intransitively,
to be successful and [2] transitively, to make something a success. 420 Alex Luc notes that
usually refers to accomplishing successfully what is intended. 421 This element of intention
dovetails nicely with the internal Hiphil noted above. Hausmann notes that in Dan 8:24
does mean that even though the defiant king does indeed succeed at some things, God will
certainly impose limitations [Dan 11:36].422 The limitations imposed by Yahweh are indeed
upon malevolent resources and intentions of the defiant king.
The third component in the backbone of the predictive discourse is: he will act with effect
[ (Qal, waw consecutive perfect, 3rd, ms)]. This sentence is also a commissive,
promising the certitude of the outcome as vouchsafed by Gabriel, the speaker.
Act with effect [] is from a semantic field of terms for act. 423 The verb is very
prominent in the Hebrew Bible, appearing 2527 times in the Qal stem alone. The ranges of
meaning in the Qal are these: [1] to make, manufacture, [2] to attach, [3] to make for, with, or
from, [4] to create, of Yahweh, [5] to give effect to, to do, to accomplish, [6] to acquire, obtain for
oneself, [7] to prepare, [8] to make in a wide sense, [9] to carry out, perform, [10] to perform
labor, work or toil, [11] to act, behave, and [12] to do or treat. 424 Used in juxtaposition with
/succeed, the usage of in Dan 8:24 is best seen in the light of sense [5] above:
to act with effect. In other words, the defiant king carries through [] on his purposes,
and for all intents and purposes, carries the day [for the time being].
The fourth stage in the predictive discourse is: he will destroy the mighty and the holy people
[ (Hiphil, waw consecutive perfect, 3rd,
ms)]. The sentence opens with the finite verb signaling another commissive, promising that the
truth claim in this line will come to pass. There are two direct objects of destruction []:
[1] mighty ones [] and [2] holy people [].
418 On this point, see IBHS 27.2f.
419 See Success and skill in NIDOTTE.
420 KB2, 1026-27.
421 Alex Luc, , in NIDOTTE [H7502].
422 J. Hausmann, , in TDOT, vol. XII, 384.
423 See Act in NIDOTTE.
424 KB1, 890-91.
88

2016
Loren Lineberry,
There is a line of thought that reads the two direct objects as referring to one and the
same referent: the mighty ones that is the holy people.425 I doubt this for two reasons: [1] the
verbal counterpart of the adjective used here mighty ones is used in 8:24a of the might of this
leader himself; this suggests that the adjective also refers to one of his caste, those who are
politically and militarily powerful; and [2] this adjective is used thirty one times in the Hebrew
Bible, with only one clear reference to the people of God.
He will destroy [] is a verb we have already seen in Dan 8:24a [he will bring about
dreadful ruin (see the notes on pages 86-87)]. I see no reason to change the use of here
from that in Dan 8:24a: [1] physical destruction, including death, and [2] possibly moral
corruption. However, here, as in Dan 8:24, the scales must be tipped in the direction of physical
destruction for both objects: the mighty [who are the defiant kings foes] and holy people, who
are also his enemies. Interestingly, the Septuagint tradition translates with Greek verbs
that contain both of these ranges of meaning. The Old Greek uses for ,
which means destroy, ruin, corrupt, spoil.426 Theodotion uses for
, which means [1] spoil or destroy, or [2] ruin in a moral sense. 427
Mighty ones [] is the masculine, plural, adjectival form of the verb [] used in
Dan 8:24a; the adjective is from a semantic field of terms for power and strength. When this
form of the adjective is used in the Hebrew Bible, it often refers to mighty nations, 428 or simply
kings.429 BDB reads in terms of mighty people.430 N. Lohfink makes an interesting
point regarding in Dan 8:24: describes mighty kings and nations that are
enemies of the defiant king [whom Lohfink identifies as Antiochus Epiphanes]. 431 The net
effect is that these mighty ones are the politically-militarily powerful adversaries of the defiant
king. Furthermore, to the extent that he destroys them, the defiant king liquidates his
political and military foes.
Holy people [] is a phrase that is used six times in the Hebrew Bible, five of
them in Deuteronomy [Deuteronomy 7:6; 14:2, 21; 26:19; 28:9]. It would seem that this fact
must be kept in mind as we evaluate the meaning of holy people [].
Deuteronomy 7:6 is a motive clause: for, a holy people you, to the Lord your God
[ ]. The holy people are clarified in the
following line: the Lord your God has chosen you to be His personal possession [
]. Furthermore, Deuteronomy 7:6 is
written as a motive for these people to utterly destroy every vestige of idolatry when they march
into the Promised Land [Deuteronomy 7:4-5]. The upshot is that /holy
people denotes a chosen people, a people reserved for Yahwehs possession, and a people utterly
separate from idolatry.
Deuteronomy 14:2 is also a motive clause that repeats the language of Deuteronomy 7:6,
and does so for essentially the same reason: be separate from idolatry [Deuteronomy 14:1].
Thus, the thrust of Deuteronomy 14:1-2 is precisely that of Deuteronomy 7:4-6.
425 For this reading, see Goldingay, 199.
426 BAGD, 857.
427 Ibid., 190.
428 Deuteronomy 4:38; 7:1; 9:1; 11:23; Joshua 23:9; Micah 4:3; Zechariah 8:22.
429 Psalm 135:10.
430 BDB, 783; see also Isaiah 53:12; Proverbs 18:18.
431 N. Lohfink, , in TDOT, vol. XI, 303.
89

2016
Loren Lineberry,
Deuteronomy 14:21 is within a context that concerns dietary laws [Deuteronomy 14:321]. The argument of the context is that the people of God maintain their position as people
wholly consecrated to Yahweh by avoiding what Yahweh has declared to be impure. In
Deuteronomy 14:21, avoiding eating meat that dies naturally, thus avoiding the blood that is still
in it, is a way of showing wholehearted consecration to Yahweh, remaining a
/holy people.
Deuteronomy 26:19 is part of a larger context, Deuteronomy 26:16-19, that depicts the
mutual relationship between Yahweh and His people. In Deuteronomy 26:19, Yahweh has set
[] His people above all nations [ ], essentially for His praise
[], for His fame [], and for His glory []; thus His people will be a
/holy people. The emphasis in Deuteronomy 26:19 is that to be a
is to reflect the praise, fame, and glory of Yahweh.
Finally, Deuteronomy 28:9 is in a context of blessings and curses, Deuteronomy 28:7-10
enlarges upon the blessedness of faithfully following Yahweh. Deuteronomy 28:9 promises
Yahweh will establish you [ (Hiphil, imperfect, 3rd, ms)] for Himself [] as a
/ holy people. The operative term is the causative Hiphil, will establish;
Yahwehs people, His /holy people, will enjoy the blessing of Yahwehs aid
in establishing them as His holy people.
So, what does all of this tell us? Essentially, there are traits unique to the
/holy people. First, /holy people denotes a chosen
people, a people reserved for Yahwehs possession, and a people utterly separate from idolatry
[Deuteronomy 7:6; 14:2]; second, the /holy people are wholly consecrated
to Yahweh, avoiding what Yahweh regards as impure [Deuteronomy 14:21]; third, the
/holy people are intended by Yahweh to reflect His praise, fame, and glory
[Deuteronomy 26:19]; and fourth to be one of the /holy people is a
blessing insofar as Yahweh establishes His people as /holy people
[Deuteronomy 28:9].
To the extent that Scripture is inspired, we may plausibly infer that Yahweh intends that
we read /holy people in Dan 8:24b in light of the Deuteronomy passages;
the fact that this precise phrase (adjective)/holy people occurs only in
the Deuteronomy and Daniel passages is either strangely accidental or typically intentional.
The upshot is this: the /holy people are [1] reserved for Yahwehs
possession, [2] utterly separate from idolatry, [3] wholly consecrated to Yahwehs revealed will,
[4] called to reflect Yahwehs glory to the world, and [5] blessed to be established as His
/holy people. The reader of Dan 8:24 can readily understand how these
traits would place the /holy people in the crosshairs of tyrants like the
defiant king in Dan 8:24b.
Summary
Dan 8:24 is a portrait of a tyrant: mighty, strong, ruinous, successful, and
destructive. This kind of ruler is a poster child for what passes as the successful or dynamic
leader: all mighty, all powerful, and unstoppable.
90

2016
Loren Lineberry,
The angel calls attention to his might, using language that suggests the kind of vital
strength that combines skill and competence; this man is surely good at what he does. Indeed, his
strength is of the overpowering variety; we may infer that strength means military strength,
economic strength, political strength, and intellectual strength.
Gabriel also calls attention to what this kind of leader does with his considerable gifts and
aptitudes: he ruins, he destroys, and he is successful at both. This kind of leader seems to have
the knack for ruining everything he/she comes in contact with; he ruins physically in terms of
destruction of lands and property and he ruins morally, corrupting with his highly skilled doubledealing. In a nutshell, this kind of leader destroys, leveling cities, towns, nations, and peoples;
nothing is immune from the devastating mania of this kind of political leader. Finally, this type of
leader is routinely successful; at the outset at least, he seems to be unstoppable because he is
unrelenting and relentless in his/her pursuit of power and expansion. Rabbi Heschel summarizes
the legacy of men such as these who ascend, all too often and all too sadly, to leadership in the
world: What is the ultimate profit of all the arms, alliances, and victories? Destruction, agony,
death.432
Dan 8:25 Furthermore, owing to his cunning, he will cause treachery to succeed aided by his
power, while in his own mind he will magnify himself, and in the midst of careless security, he
will destroy many; indeed, he will rise up as a foe of the Prince of princes, but without human
power he will be shattered.
Dan 8:25 contains the fifth component in the predictive discourse: he will cause treachery to
succeed [ ]. This verse is sufficiently complex to recall its structure:
Final prediction in predictive discourse he will cause treachery to succeed
Means owing to his cunning
Means aided by his power
Background note while in his own mind he will magnify himself
(a) Additional background prediction he will destroy many
(b) Another background prediction he will rise up as a foe of the Prince of
princes
(c) Final background prediction he will be shattered
Means but without human power
The reader will note that the main event in this verse of predictive discourse is the final
prediction; everything else in the verse is background information on the net effects of his
successful treachery: [1] he will destroy, [2] he will rise up, and [3] he will be shattered.
As we have noted from the outset of this study on Daniel, the theme is the book is Gods
sovereignty over national and international political power players; this theme is teased out in
vivid detail in this verse; Yahweh has the final say as Dan 2:21, and now Dan 8:25, strikingly
point out.
432 Heschel, Prophets, vol. 1, 160.

91

2016
Loren Lineberry,
The final link in the chain of the predictive discourse is this: he will cause treachery to
succeed [ (Hiphil, waw consecutive perfect, 3rd, ms)]. The verb is
written in the Hiphil stem with an object treachery []. In this kind of construction,
the Hiphil underscores the subject [defiant king] causing a process [succeed] directed toward
an objective [treachery].433
Succeed [] has been discussed in Dan 8:24a [see the notes on page 88].
Treachery [] comes from a semantic field of terms for fraud. 434 The ranges of
meaning for are: [1] trick, fraud, and [2] disillusionment. 435 Carpenter and Grisanti
affirm that means deceit or treachery in Dan 8:25. 436 BDB claims that
means treachery, craftiness in Dan 8:25. 437 M. Kartveit notes that refers to a
situation in which reality differs from appearance. Such situations involve interpersonal
transactions in which someone acts or speaks consciously and deliberately to conceal or cover up
certain facts. The purpose is often to gain personal advantage. 438
Collocations using a verb + are informative, breaking down into three categories: [1]
cognitive, [2] verbal, and [3] practical modes of deception.
Job 15:35 uses a verb + collocation cognitively. In this passage,
preparing/considering [] deception [] is disambiguated with [1]
conceiving [] disaster/evil [] and [2] bringing forth []
iniquity/evil/disaster []. What this passage tells us is that the mind is the birth place of
as evil and disaster.
Proverbs 26:24 also uses a verb + collocation cognitively. The proverb equates
disguising [] hate [] with laying up [] deceit [] internally.
What this suggests is that may cognitively take on aspects of hate.
Psalm 34:14 uses a verb + collocation verbally. In this passage, lips
speaking [] deceit [] is disambiguated with guarding [] the tongue
from evil/wickedness []. What this suggests is that , when spoken, is tantamount
to wickedness. A similar relationship between and is made in Psalm 50:19.
The practical modes of deception [] are in Dan 8:25; 11:23. As we noted
above, the practical mode features the defiant king causing the process of deception []
to succeed. In this case, is tantamount to deceit, trickery, fraud, or treachery. It is
clear that the various modes of /deception involve evil, hatred, and disaster all in the
service of the defiant kings personal advantage. There are two means by which the defiant king
succeeds in his sham existence: [1] cunning and [2] power.
433 IBHS 27.2 d.

434 See Fraud in NIDOTTE.
435 KB1, 636.
436 Eugene Carpenter and Michael Grisanti, , in NIDOTTE [H8228].
437 BDB, 941.
438 M. Kartveit, , in TDOT, vol. XIII, 501.
92

2016
Loren Lineberry,
Owing to his cunning [] is a prepositional phrase that uses in a

causative sense.439 What is more, the prepositional phrase owing to his cunning is front
loaded in the line suggesting some intentional emphasis on this trait. The reader is encouraged to
weigh and consider this trait carefully.
Cunning [] is from a semantic field of terms for understanding. 440 KohlerBaumgartner note that reflects different meanings of the verb: on the one hand to
understand, and on the other, to be successful. The first of these meanings is by far the most
important.441 Accordingly, the ranges of meaning for are: [1] insight, understanding,
and [2] success.442 Regarding in Dan 8:25a, Kohler-Baumgartner translate in the
sense of striving, planning.443 In usage, however, shows some flexibility.
, the singular, masculine, noun occurs sixteen times in the Hebrew Bible. 444 is
used to denote: [1] intelligence or wisdom (1 Samuel 25:3), [2] discretion or insight (1 Chronicles
22:12), [3] cunning, craftiness, shrewdness (1 Chronicles 26:14), [4] meaning, sense (Nehemiah
8:8), [5] success, approval (Proverbs 3:4). Nuance [3], a negative sense, appears to be the best
option for in Dan 8:25a. Driver reads in a negative sense, astuteness.445 Fox
observes that denotes the ability to grasp the meanings or implications of a situation or
message.446
Thus, is a trait whereby a man can understand and interpret practical matters and
make decisions, which in this case, reflect the best interests of the defiant king. In other words,
describes a crafty, calculating, shrewd, scheming, and wily political-military operative.
To the extent that treachery in the sense of distorting appearance and reality, making the sham
seem like the authentic, succeeds in the hands of this defiant king, it does so owing to his
cunningness, his craftiness, his underhandedness.
By his power [] is another means by which this kind of political-military
operative eases the way for treachery to seem to be honesty. Again, we have a prepositional
phrase. The use of the preposition, , is probably an instrumental signaling the personal
agency of the defiant king in supplementing power with cunning in order to promote his
treacherous political-military wheeling and dealing. 447
Power [] is obviously a figurative use of /hand. Among the figurative uses
are: [1] the sphere of power, rule, control, [2] authority, [3] charge, custody, command, and [4]
power, strength, force.448 One of two senses seems to apply in this case: [1] the defiant king
supplements cunning with force in order to advance his treacheries, or [2] he supplements
439 Van der Merwe 39.20.5; IBHS 11.2.13e; Williams 291.
440 See Understanding in NIDOTTE.
441 KB2, 1329.
442 Ibid.
443 Ibid., 1330.
444 1 Samuel 25:3; 1 Chronicles 22:12; 26:14; 2 Chronicles 2:11; 30:22; Ezra 8:18; Nehemiah
8:8; Job 17:4; Psalm 111:10; Proverbs 3:4; 12:8; 13:15; 16:22; 19:11; 23:9; Daniel 8:25.
445 Driver, 125.
446 Fox, Proverbs 1-9, 36.
447 On this use of , see IBHS 11.2.5d; Williams 245; Van der Merwe 39.6.3.
448 CDCH, 145.
93

2016
Loren Lineberry,
cunning with his authority to promote his agenda. At the end of the day, there may not be
much difference.
At this point, the heavenly speaker lifts out some background information, some
circumstances that flow out of this final link in the chain of predictive discourse he will cause
treachery to succeed. One of these circumstances involves the defiant kings hubris in his
own mind he will magnify himself; another situation comprises the destructive outcome of his
deceits he will destroy many; while a further episode involves the rulers hostility to Yahweh
he will rise up as a foe of the Prince of princes. When all is said and done, a completely
unforeseen circumstance, from the tyrants point of view, overtakes him without human power,
he will be shattered. Hubris, destruction, and anti-God hostility are the aftershocks of
politically-militarily sanctioned treachery; these are the repercussions the reader should learn to
expect from those whose solitary aim in life is to acquire and exploit power.
Successfully fomenting treachery leads to hubris: while in his own mind he will
magnify himself [ (Hiphil, imperfect, 3rd, ms) ]. Syntactically, the
line is a circumstantial clause, signaled by the disjunctive waw []. The disjunctive
waw signals off-line, background material concerning the personal outlook of this man associated
with his initial successes.449
In his own mind [] is a prepositional phrase, marking the state or condition in
which the action of the verb takes place.450
It is best to translate as mind rather than heart, since the latter has
connotations of emotion that tend to oust, for the modern reader, the cerebral component in
. According to Kohler-Baumgartner, has the following ranges of meaning when
applied to humans: [1] the physical organ within the human body, [2] the seat of vital force; life,
[3] ones inner self, the seat of feelings and emotions, [4] inclination, disposition, [5]
determination, courage, [6] will, intention, [7] attention, consideration, reason, [8] mind in
general and as a whole, [9] conscience, [10] inside or middle of something, [11] the organized
strength of life/person.451 Of these, options [4] and [7] best fit the context, especially when
associated with magnify himself []. Moreover, as noted above, the prepositional
phrase identifies the state or condition in which the self-magnification occurs. In other words,
the state of affairs in which the defiant king magnifies himself consists of his inclination or
disposition to do so, or his consideration or reasons for doing so. BDB has a category of
meanings for that includes moral character, specifically the seat of pride. 452 Perhaps
we can narrow things down a bit.
He will magnify himself [ (Hiphil, imperfect, 3rd, ms, sg)] is an internal
Hiphil; in other words, the internal Hiphil represents the defiant king causing himself to be
regarded as magnificent.453 This self-causation must occur in the /mind. Accordingly,
the internal Hiphil of in concert with /mind signals that the defiant king in the
realm of his / consideration/reason succeeds in convincing himself of his great
magnitude.
449 For the disjunctive waw implying off-line, background circumstances, see IBHS 39.2.3b;
Gibson 135.
450 BDB, 88.
451 KB1, 514-15.
452 BDB, 523-24.
453 IBHS 27.2f.
94

2016
Loren Lineberry,
This is not the first use of in the Hiphil in the sense of magnify himself.454 As
noted in conjunction with Dan 8:4, as an internal Hiphil means act mightily, act
boastfully, magnify oneself.455 E. Jenni notes that the Hiphil of may be an innercausative usage of the root, implying to make oneself great, to make oneself become great. 456
R. Mosis renders the Hiphil of in the sense of to prove oneself to be great actually and
effectively.457 The reader should note the distinction in these meanings between greatness as
built up in the mind and greatness as proving oneself to be great in the real world. In light of the
context of Dan 8:25a he will destroy many that which began in the defiant kings mind
takes shape, destructive shape to be sure but this is a deviant perception of greatness, in the real
world. Surely, the words of Solomon in Proverbs 23:7 fit well here: as a man calculates
[] within himself, so is he.
Another of the circumstances that follow close upon the heels of the final link in the
predictive chain he will cause treachery to succeed is a destructive circumstance, pure and
simple: in the midst of careless security, he will destroy many. Lets review the syntax of these
two clauses:
Additional background prediction he will destroy many
In the midst of careless security [] introduces another off-line bit of background
information further teasing out what the political governance in the regnal prophecy [8:23-25b]
looks like. The grammar of the sentence utilizes a disjunctive waw [] prefixed to a
prepositional phrase and, in the midst of careless security followed by the finite verb he will
destroy and its direct object many.
In the midst of careless security [] is a bit of a misnomer; for, the preposition,
, is probably a temporal use of , signaling at a time when. Thus the prepositional phrase
when translated temporally marks a time in which the events in the sentence occur.458 The sense
of the prepositional phrase indicates during a time of or in the midst of. Obviously, the operative
term is the object of the preposition careless security.
Careless security [] is from a semantic field of terms for quiet.459 This feminine noun
occurs eight times in the Hebrew Bible,460 three of them in Daniel. Kohler-Baumgartner offer
the following ranges of meaning for : [1] ease, rest, carefree rest, and [2] security in the
sense of self-confidence.461 Kohler-Baumgartner read in Dan 8:25 in the sense of
while they were at ease,462 option [1]. Holladay opts for while they were relaxed. 463
454 See Daniel 8:4, 8, 11.

455 CDCH, 62.
456 E. Jenni, , TLOT I, 304.
458 IBHS 11.2.5c.
459 See Quiet in NIDOTTE.
460 Psalm 122:7; Proverbs 1:32; 17:1; Jeremiah 22:21; Ezekiel 16:49; Daniel 8:25; 11:21, 24.
461 KB2, 1505.
462 Ibid.
463 Holladay, 371.
95

2016
Loren Lineberry,
Philip Nel translates in Dan 8:25 in the sense of unpreparedness: heedless or

unconcerned.464 K. Grnwaldt cites an Akkadian cognate, el, which means be(come)
negligent.465 Grnwaldt further affirms that should be translated unexpectedly,
without warning.466
Interestingly, both the Old Greek and Theodotion translate in Dan 8:25 with
the Greek noun , a noun that means by cunning or by stealth.467 This sense
dovetails with Grnwaldts note above. However, the Old Greek and Theodotion translate
in Dan 11:21, 24 with the adverb, , which means suddenly or
unexpectedly.468 The interesting point is this: the author of 1 Maccabees also uses
when he relates the exploits of Antiochus Epiphanes in 1 Maccabees 1:29-30,
the summer of 168 BC. The account is this:
Two years later, the king sent the chief collector of tribute into
the cities of Judah and he came to Jerusalem with a savage force.
Then, he [the collector] spoke words of peace, but with guile;
and they [the inhabitants of Jerusalem] believed him; but he fell
upon the city unexpectedly [], and he struck it
with great blows, and so he destroyed many people of Israel.
We have noted repeatedly that Antiochus Epiphanes is one of many exemplars of the kind of
rogue political regimes one finds in human history. Dan 8:25 as well as 11:21, 25 more than
likely do have reference to Antiochus Epiphanes and his treacherous exploits as outlined in 1
Maccabees. So, how does all of this fit together?
It would seem that the negligent, unprepared, unconcerned attitude among the people of
Judah [] in the example above paves the way for their enemy falling upon them
unexpectedly []. In other words, the lack of vigilance in Dan 8:25 primes people
for destruction unawares [Dan 11:21, 25]. The larger principle is this: a political platform that
promises peace may be mere subterfuge, yielding more destruction than tranquility. The linkage
between Dan 8 and Antiochus is merely proof of the principle.
He will destroy many [ (Hiphil, imperfect, 3rd, ms)] is the outcome
of all the treachery and deceit. This is the same verb [] that we have twice in Dan 8:24.
When all is said and done, I see no reason to change the use of here from that in Dan
8:24a-b: [1] physical destruction, including death, and [2] possibly moral corruption. However,
here, as in Dan 8:24, the scales must be tipped in the direction of physical destruction.
Yet another of the circumstances that follow close upon the heels of the final link in the
predictive chain he will cause treachery to succeed is an anti-God hostility: he will rise up
as a foe of the Prince of princes. The grammar of 8:25b opens with a disjunctive waw prefixed to
a prepositional phrase indeed, as a foe of the Prince of princes followed by the finite verb
he will rise up. We begin by considering the opening prepositional phrase.
464 Philip J. Nel, , in NIDOTTE [H8922].

465 K. Grnwaldt, , in TDOT, vol. XV, 9.
466 Ibid., 10.
467 BAGD, 203.
468 Ibid., 273.
96

2016
Loren Lineberry,
As a foe of the Prince of princes [] is a prepositional phrase; the

preposition is and the object of the preposition is . The preposition
is used metaphorically to mark an adversary;469 hence the translation as a foe of.
Prince of princes [] appears only here in the Hebrew Bible. The noun, ,
appears eighteen times in Daniel.470 The referents of in Daniel are: [1] humans in the sense
of a military commander or a tribal leader (Dan 1:7-11, 18; 9:6, 8; 11:5), [2] Yahweh (Dan 8:11),
and [3] various angels (Dan 10:13, 20-21; 12:1). We may conjecture that
denotes Yahweh/Prince [] over angels/princes []. Slotki concurs, identifying
as God, the princes being the archangels.471
In terms of the Hebrew Bible as a whole, has the following ranges of meaning: [1] outside
of Israel: (a) a representative of the king, an official, (b) a person of note, a commander, (c) a
leader of a group or district; [2] within Israel: (a) a person of note, head, first, (b) a higher
being.472 We can see that is used in Daniel in both ways.
The upshot is that Prince of princes entails Yahweh and the heavenly host of angelic servants; in
other words, Gabriel is emphasizing the scope of the defiant kings hostility toward Yahweh. The
king is storming heaven from top to bottom.
Rise up [] is from a semantic field of terms for stand, station. 473 When used
with the preposition, , one sense of the collocation is stand (against), rise up (against),
withstand.474 BDB concurs, translating the collocation with rise up as a foe against. 475
Finally, when all is said and done, a completely unforeseen circumstance, from the tyrants point
of view, overtakes him but, without human power, he will be shattered. In this case, the
disjunctive waw [] that opens this line signals a contrast [but] to the above [Dan 8:23-25a].476
Then the final background prediction he will be shattered is supplemented by the means
but without human power.
But without human power [ ] is a prepositional phrase that is front-loaded in the
line, probably for emphasis. This is the only place in the Hebrew Bible where
/without human power appears. The preposition functions to signal
instrumentality; literally not by means of human hands.477
Without [] is a masculine noun that comes from a semantic field of terms for end. 478 The
noun appears twenty nine times in the Hebrew Bible, only here in Daniel. The ranges of meaning
for are as follows: [1] extremity, end, [2] end, nothing, nothingness, and [3] a limitative
469 The preposition may be used in a metaphorical sense to signal disadvantage [IBHS,
11.2.13c] or an adversative nuance [Williams 288]; see also GKC 119 dd; J-M 133 f.
470 Daniel 1:7-11, 18; 8:11, 252; 9:6, 8; 10:132, 202-21; 11:5; 12:1.
471 Slotki, 71.
472 KB2, 1351-52.
473 See Stand, station in NIDOTTE.
474 CDCH, 330.
475 BDB, 763.
476 For the disjunctive waw signaling a contrast with a previous sentence, see IBHS 39.2.3b.
477 For the instrumental , see IBHS 11.2.5d.
478 See End, cessation, outcome in NIDOTTE.
97

2016
Loren Lineberry,
use: notwithstanding.479 Kohler-Baumgartner locate in option [2], not by human

hand.480 BDB reads as a particle of negation, expressing non-existence, signaling the
cessation of.481
When combined with the instrumental use of the preposition, , signals the nonexistence of any human instrumentality in the demise of the defiant king. As we have pointed out
often, the theme of the book of Daniel is the Gods sovereignty over national and international
political power-players; this clause is evidence of Gods sovereignty [see Dan 2:21].
He will be shattered [ (Niphal, imperfect, 3rd, ms)] comes from a semantic field
of terms for destruction.482 The verb is written in the Niphal stem, which is used in this
instance to signal passivity; the subject the defiant king is in the state of suffering the effects
of destruction by an implicit agent.483 In concert with the note in the previous paragraph, the
implicit agent is surely Yahweh. Regarding the imperfect aspect of the main verb, Waltke and
OConnor argue that the imperfect aspect in a context relating to future time basically points to a
situation that is dependent on some other situation in the context [A gives rise to B (imperfect
aspect verb)].484 In this context, the situation that gives rise to the shattering of the defiant king is
the intervention of Yahweh without human power.
Shattered [] in the Niphal has the following ranges of meaning: [1] to be smashed, break,
including people, animals, inanimate objects, [2] to be broken, be shattered, [3] to be broken, be
destroyed, meaning oppressed, humbled.485 The sense of in Dan 8:25 seems to be option
[2], to be broken down or ruined.486 B. Knipping has an interesting point regarding the use of the
Niphal with an implicit agent, Yahweh: you are broken (and God initiated it). 487 Proverbs 6:15
puts the same thing this way: Therefore, suddenly calamity will come; in an instant, he [the
wicked man] will be shattered [] with no remedy. The proverb takes Knippings point
one step further: not only does God initiate the brokenness, there is no antidote available.
Summary
Dan 8:25 is the climax of Gabriels interpretive work begun in Dan 8:16. The interpretation
breezes through Medio-Persia [Dan 8:20], and hastens through Greece [Dan 8:21-22]. But, when
Gabriel comes to the defiant king in Dan 8:23b, he lingers and teases out disastrous details [Dan
8:23-25]. These details explored in Dan 8:25 survey the consequences of virtually unlimited
power in human hands; the picture is a dismal one; for it is politically dismal, socially dismal, and
spiritually dismal.
First, the portrait in Dan 8:25 is politically grim when one appreciates the reflection of
the leader in the verse: he is a cunning, treacherous politician, who majors in self-glorification, in
his own mind at least. What is more, he is destructive in just about every way a leader can be
toxic. In terms of summarizing Dan 8:25, the reader should acknowledge the pervasiveness, if
479 KB1, 79.
480 Ibid.
481 BDB, 67.
482 See Shattering, breaking, destroying in NIDOTTE.
483 IBHS 23.2.2a.
484 Ibid., 31.6.2a.
485 KB2, 1403.
486 CDCH, 447.
487 B. Knipping, , in TDOT, vol. XIV, 374.
98

2016
Loren Lineberry,
not the inescapability of such leaders in a fallen world, through history down to the present
moment. Joyce Baldwins observation on Dan 8:25 is noteworthy: This fact is an indication that
we are being introduced to a recurring historical phenomenon [emphasis mine]: the clever but
ruthless world dictator, who stops at nothing in order to achieve his ends. 488
In Dan 8:25, we perceive the likeness of a cunning and treacherous leader. Cunning means that
this sort of political-military power-player can understand and interpret practical matters and
make decisions, which in this case, reflect the best interests of the defiant king; he is highly
skilled at playing means off against ends, where the ends are always tilted in his political-military
favor. Cunning describes a crafty, calculating, shrewd, scheming, and wily political-military
operative. To the extent that treachery, in the sense of confusing appearance and reality,
succeeds in the hands of this kind of leader, it does so owing to his cunning, his slyness, his
underhandedness.
Treacherous means that this sort of major player on the world scene is essentially and to
his very core a fraud. Deceit and treachery are his stock and trade; this is the kind of leader who
is skillfully adept at upending reality and appearance. Indeed, this sort of leader has an
irrefutable gift for acting or speaking in such a way as to conceal the facts or, what is worse, make
truth seem other than what it really is; the purpose is always for personal advantage. If we were
to sum up, in a motto, what personal advantage looks like to this kind of leader, one could not
improve upon Mussolinis motto: Everything within the state, noting outside the state, nothing
against the state. Every filament of this leaders cunning and treachery grovels to this axiom.
Any people who encourage the belief in the everythingness of the state, as opposed to, say, the
immediacy and finality of God, then such people, whether they know it or not, live in a
totalitarian regime.
Second, the sketch in Dan 8:25 is socially gruesome on two counts: this sort of man
actually facilitates treachery succeeding in the social order, moreover, this leadership is a
leadership of destruction.
We have already noted what treachery is, at least as far as Gabriel is concerned in his
interpretation in Dan 8:25. Treachery means making the true appear false and the false appear
true; treachery means adjusting what is real to accommodate a faade of what is sham; treachery
means obfuscating, muddying the waters with innuendo; treachery means appealing to fear or to
populism or to character assassination or to flattery or to pity or to anger in order to make good.
But, with all of that, this sort of leader expedites making treachery succeed, popularizing a kind
of perverse expertise; the gruesome legacy of this sort of leader is his model, his moral template
that endorses accomplishing ones objective through treachery if necessary. The repugnant truth
is that this kind of leader signals that success in the social realm must stoop to duplicity and
deceit whenever necessary in order to carry the day; his obscene example advances the fraudulent
notion that this is the way things get done! Sadly but ever so truly, men buy into this fraud,
into this moral fiction that rulers have expertise in managing the social realm: the notion of
social control embodied in the notion of expertise is indeed a masquerade. Our social order is in
a very literal sense out of our, and indeed, anyones control. No one is or could be in charge. 489
Of course, Professor MacIntyre is quick to point out that this masquerade is, at this moment in
time, a substitute for God.490 However, what Dan 8:25 implies is that when men like the defiant
488 Baldwin, 162.
489 Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007; third
edition), 107.
490 Ibid.
99

2016
Loren Lineberry,
king govern, then the barbarians are not waiting beyond the frontier; they have already been
governing us for quite some time. And it is our lack of consciousness of this that constitutes part
of our predicament.491 In the final analysis, portrayal of barbarians that govern is, to a large
extent, what the book of Daniel is all about!
Beyond treachery, Gabriel goes out of his way in Daniel 8 to underline the destructiveness of this
kind of sham leader; he brings about dreadful ruin [Dan 8:24a]; he will destroy the mighty as
well as holy people [Dan 8:24b]; ultimately, he will destroy many [Dan 8:25]. What would we
expect? A cunning, double-dealing, idolater of power is not morally equipped to do much of
anything else but spoil and decay and crush. To be sure, his spoilage comes in two forms, as we
noted: he ends life and he corrupts life. Regarding this mans penchant for corrupting what he
touches, there are four points, points that emerged in our study of Dan 8:24 [he will destroy
the holy people].
To begin with, Gods people are reserved for Yahwehs possession; but leaders like this
one have a knack for contaminating Yahwehs possession. Their perverse role model
communicates a kind of pluralism in the matter of ones ultimate allegiances. That is, one can
indeed serve God and mammon; or one surely must render to Caesar first and foremost, leaving
the crumbs for God.
Moreover, Gods people must always and in every way be separate from idolatry; but
leaders like this one have a positive gift for comporting themselves as worthy of Godlike status.
Lets not be nave or engage in evasions; for many in the western democracies, politics and those
who serve in the political realm have de facto nudged out God from His rightful place of final and
ultimate allegiance. We have made an idol out of the state and those who serve the ends of the
state; with our lips we draw near to God, but our hearts seem to be far from Him.
Additionally, Gods people must be wholly consecrated to Gods revealed will; but
leaders like this one stake their public lives on the proposition that one can, indeed must, navigate
life on purely secular terms. Indeed, in the western democracies, the cry is shrill and stubborn to
the effect that ultimate Biblical values have no place whatsoever in public policy considerations.
On the contrary, leaders like this shepherd civil discourse through a torturous commitment to the
relativization of all values. At this hour in the western democracies, including especially the
United States, the social order, including far too many religious people, has sold its birthright to
moral confusion and moral relativism, suspended over a spiritual vacuum. The sad fact of the
matter is that God is virtually silent in our social order; a state of affairs that surely goes a long
way to explain our social disorder.
Finally on this point, Gods people have been created to reflect Gods glory; but leaders
like this one, owing especially to their role as social prototype, are endlessly bombarding us with
pseudo-glory, that is a glory that basks in merely human attainment: the latest victory on the
battlefield; the latest nation annexed into the realm; the latest deity defied before all the realm; the
latest piece of legislation for the benefit of the citizenry. It is virtually pointless to remind this
kind of leader that man was created as the image of God [Genesis 1:26], which among other
things means that mankind was created to reflect Gods interests. David Clines puts the matter
this way, Man is created not in God's image, since God has no image of His own, but as God's
image, or rather to be God's image, that is to deputize in the created world for the transcendent
God who remains outside the world order.492 At this hour, mans deputation has been rescinded
491 Ibid., 263.
492 David J.A. Clines, The Image of God in Man, Tyndale Bulletin 19 (1968), 101.
100

2016
Loren Lineberry,
before the court of public opinion; God has become a cultural unmentionable, especially among
the cultural elites. But, Daniel has given us fair warning!
Third, the portrayal in Dan 8:25 is spiritually dismal, for this kind of leader intentionally attacks
God; he sets himself up as the foe of the divine. As we have seen earlier in Daniel 8, this kind of
leader violates the sanctuary [Dan 8:11b], intrudes into the relationship between God and His
people [Dan 8:12a], and succeeds in removing divine truth from public consciousness [Dan
8:12b]. This kind of leader with the consent of those whom he governs manages to maintain the
hoax that politics is everything, that only what is political and governmental and of the state is
ultimately important and deserving of notice. In modern terms, this kind of leader is fully abetted
by the media, which helps to assure that only what is political gets noticed.493 So it is; but all of
this has spiritual consequences: as noted above, man is created for higher things than idolizing
the political realm of the state; but, when a new religion the state and its politics arrests the
attention and the worship of man, man becomes less than he was created to be; man is
diminished, devalued, cheapened. The net effect is rampant secularism, unbridled greed,
uncontrolled sexuality, unchecked substance abuse, widespread death. When God is dismissed
from the public consciousness, virtually anything becomes the norm. So, Daniel gives us fair
warning about this too!
We now come to the conclusion of Gabriels presentation, Dan 8:26, a conclusion that back
references Dan 8:14, a verse that depicts the desolation of the sanctuary for evening-morning,
two thousand and three hundred. There would appear to be some encouragement implied in this
back reference: the desolation, though reprehensible, is both finite in duration and limited by the
sovereignty of God; this is the point of the numbers and little else.
Dan 8:26 Now, the vision concerning the morning and the evening, which was told, it [is]
true; but you keep the vision secret, for [it] concerns many days.
Dan 8:26 has two simple components: the truth value of the vision concerning morning
and evening and a directive to keep the vision secret.
The vision concerning the morning and the evening [ ]
is a back reference to Dan 8:14.494 At the time, we noted the following: [1] the prepositional
phrase in Dan 8:14 for [] evening-morning two thousand three hundred indicates a
period of time up to a limit; [2] whatever the rest of the sentence may imply, the drift is to point to
a fixed period of time up to which these events occur. They go no further; there are divinely fixed
limits on this regimes reign of terror; [3] evening-morning [ ] translates two nouns
in sequence with nothing between them; thus, we woodenly translate evening-morning; [4] as a
time reference, evening-morning is ambiguous; evening-morning surely refers to the daily
offering in Dan 8:11. If evening-morning is read in a comprehensive sense, then the two nouns
signify one day; if, however, they are read individually, then the two nouns signify half days; [5]
as far as reading 2300 days or 2300 half days [or 1150 full days], we cannot be dogmatic; [6] we
concluded that the time reference is immaterial; the larger point is that, whenever this kind of
thing begins and whatever time it takes, God has placed such sacrilegious goings-on within
limits. There is no reason to modify this reading for Dan 8:26.
It [is] true [ ] is a verbless clause, literally true it. The it refers to the vision
concerning the morning and the evening. True [] is found among a semantic field of
493 Neuhaus, 156.
494 See the full notes on page 60.
101

2016
Loren Lineberry,
terms for trust.495 This feminine noun has the following ranges of meaning: [1] reliability,
dependability, trustworthiness, faithfulness, constancy, as attributes of either Yahweh or humans;
[2] stability, of political conditions; [3] truth, correctness of words or statements; [4] sincerity,
honesty of motives; [5] genuineness, reality of something. 496 Kohler-Baumgartner translate
with truth.497 R.W.L. Moberly reads in Dan 8:26 in the sense of that which may
be acknowledged as the truth.498
But you, keep the vision secret [ (Qal, imperative, ms) ] is
obviously a directive from Gabriel to Daniel. The reason or motive is unpacked in the next line.
The sentence opens with psychological focus on Daniel but you. The use of the second
person pronoun is a way of emphasizing Daniels personal and exclusive role in the action,
keeping the vision secret.499
Keep secret [] is an imperative; Daniel is directed by Gabriel to keep the vision secret.
is from a semantic field of terms for closing or shutting. 500 The word has the following
ranges of meaning: [1] in the Qal: (a) to stop up, (b) to disguise, (c) to shut up words, be aloof,
keep secret; [2] in the Niphal: (a) to be blocked or shut; [3] in the Piel: to block or obstruct. 501 In
the Hebrew Bible, is written in the imperative mode only in Daniel [Dan 8:26; 12:4]. In
the latter passage, is used in parallel with in the imperative [seal up]. B. Arnold
affirms that in Dan 8:26 denotes closing off of words, visions, or wisdom, thereby
making them hidden and secret.502 Baldwin notes that implies that Daniel is to guard
from use the contents of the vision.503
For [it] concerns many days [ ] may be read as a motive clause,
spelling out the reason for keeping the vision from public view.504 The substance of the motive
clause [ ] is a prepositional phrase, which appears in this precise form only
one other time in the Hebrew Bible, Ezekiel 12:27. In the Ezekiel passage,
is disambiguated with a time far off [ ]. Thus, there
may be some warrant for reading the phrase in a similar manner, as most English versions
actually do. At least, we may understand the phrase to refer to many days in some unknown
future. The upshot is that the vision is to be kept hidden until needed at some point in the
future.505
The reader may encounter commentators who dispute the prophetic nature of what Gabriel
reveals and Daniel writes for us to read. Collins is typical: the sealing of the book here and in
Dan 12:4, 9 is necessitated by the convention of pseudepigraphy. Daniel supposedly [emphasis
mine] received his vision in the Babylonian period, but it remains unknown until the time of
495 See Trust in NIDOTTE.
496 CDCH, 26.
497 KB1, 69.
498 R.W.L. Moberly, , in NIDOTTE [H586].
499 On this point, see Van der Merwe 36.3.
500 See Closing, shutting in NIDOTTE.
501 KB1, 771.
502 Bill T. Arnold, , in NIDOTTE [H6258].
503 Baldwin, 161.
504 For this use of the particle see BDB, 437; Gibson 125 Rem.2.
505 Thus, Montgomery, 352.
102

2016
Loren Lineberry,
Antiochus Epiphanes. The secrecy of the book for the intervening period is declared after the
fact [emphasis mine].506
If taken at face value, this position renders this passage, if not the book as a whole, a
fraud. Collins reading, along with others, presumes that the book of Daniel as we have it was
written during the Maccabean age by an unknown author who lived through the obscene era of
Antiochus Epiphanes. This unknown author wrote during the Maccabean era and then backdated the book to the Babylonian era [chapters 1-6]. If this is true, and I for one do not accept it
for a minute, then the Maccabean author was being disingenuous at best and deceptive at worst.
No, the book of Daniel is prophecy with all of the supernatural weight that attends the word. We
leave the matter there!
V.Daniels reaction [Dan 8:27]

8:27a Now, I, Daniel,
became exhausted and was
overcome with grief for days,

and yet, I arose and carried on
the business of
the king;

8:27b so, I was overcome with horror
concerning the
vision,

but there was none who could explain.
Syntactical outline
Offline/background material:
Now, I, Daniel, (a) became exhausted and (b) was overcome

with grief for days
Contrast to preceding:
and yet, I arose and carried out the business of the king
Summary statement:
so, I was overcome with horror concerning the vision
Contrast to preceding:
but, there was none who could explain
Theme of paragraph
Obviously, Dan 8:27 is about Daniels state of mind and body; once more, a divine
revelation has left him physically sapped and emotionally terror-stricken.
Genre
The genre of this brief paragraph has the look of simple narrative, detailing the actual
effects of the vision on Daniel. The reader may read this brief unit as a truthful statement from
Daniels actual personal history. The reader is reminded, once more, that contact with divine
revelation again leaves Daniel devastated.
506 Collins, Daniel, 341-42.
103

2016
Loren Lineberry,
Dan 8:27 Now, I, Daniel, became exhausted and was overcome with sickness for days, and
yet, I arose and carried out the business of the king; so, I was overcome with horror concerning
the vision, but, there was no one who could explain.
I, Daniel [ ] is front-loaded to signal psychological focus conveying
the emotional heightening attached to the impact of the vision and its interpretation. 507 Indeed,
Daniel often makes this psychological focus [ ] in reference to his visionary
experiences.508 The immediate effects of the vision are communicated with two perfect aspect
verbs: exhausted [] and overcome with grief [].
Exhausted and overcome with sickness [ (simple waw, Niphal, perfect, 1st, cs)
(Niphal, perfect, 1st, cs)] are written as two Niphal perfects, which should be read
in unison. The simple waw represents two situations as coordinate with one another. 509 What is
more, both of these verbs seem to be stative verbs, that is verbs that capture the subject in a state
of being [my emphasis] rather than a state of activity [my emphasis].510 In this case, these two
stative verbs signal [1] a durative state of affairs, [2] from the standpoint of both inception and
continuation (constative perfective).511 The upshot is that both of these verbs describe Daniels
condition as a whole; this where the vision left him, physically.
Exhausted [] is one of the most used verbs in the Hebrew Bible, occurring over 3500
times. Normally, is written in the Qal stem and means either [1] be or become or [2]
happen or come to pass. When written in the Niphal stem, as it is here in Dan 8:27, the verb can
mean to be finished, exhausted.512 Holladay translates in Dan 8:27 with I am done
for.513 This exhaustion nuance of may be related to the Arabic form, wahiya, which
means to grow weak.514 This is the only appearance of in the Niphal, 1st, person perfect
in the Hebrew Bible or Qumran. Driver translates I was done with, exhausted. 515 The reader
should weigh and consider carefully reading this expression as depression, since this sense
seems to be an over-refinement. Rather, the expression seems to say that Daniel was physically
washed-out.
Overcome with sickness [] is from a semantic field of terms for sickness. 516 There really
are not too many surprises here; the verb in the Niphal means: [1] to be exhausted or [2] to be
overcome with sickness.517 These two verbs ( and ) mean that Daniel was
physically depleted and physically ill owing to the vision and its interpretation. One can only
wonder at the origin of this devastating effect upon Daniel. A plausible guess would suppose that
the spiritual effects of this kind of regime, effects as depicted in Dan 8:23-25, completely
overwhelm Daniel.
507 See IBHS 16.3.2e; J-M 146 a.
508 Daniel 8:1, 15, 27; 10:7; 12:5.
509 IBHS, 32.3a.
510 Ibid., 30.2.3a.
511 Ibid.
512 CDCH, 88.
513 Holladay, 79.
514 KB1, 244.
515 Driver, Daniel, 125; similarly Young, 182; Pter-Contesse and Ellington, 227.
516 See Sickness in NIDOTTE.
517 KB1, 317.
104

2016
Loren Lineberry,
And yet, I arose and carried on the business [ (Qal waw consecutive imperfect, 1st,
cs) (Qal, waw consecutive imperfect, 1st, cs)] is another pair of verbs that should be
read in tandem. To begin with, the first verb, I arose [], signals temporal
succession vis--vis the first pair of verbs [exhausted and overcome with sickness]. 518
Moreover, we have chosen to read the verbs in this line in contrast to the verbs in the preceding
line: in spite of his physical weakening, Daniel carried on anyway.519 Finally, the second verb in
the pair in this line temporally succeeds the first: first, Daniel arose, and second, he carried on
business. So, why does the author belabor this point? In spite of what Daniel knows or doesnt
know, in spite of the fact that spiritual disaster is on someones horizon, Daniel still gets on with
his day-to-day duties. It never occurs to him to abandon his post; he deliberately remains and
does his duty.
Business [] is a noun from a semantic field of terms for deed or work. 520 It appears
only here in Daniel. The noun has the following ranges of meaning: [1] a trade mission or
business journey, [2] business, work, occupation, task, service, [3] handiwork, craftsmanship, [4]
objects or wares of all types, [5] service, and [6] service in the cult. 521 In all likelihood,
is a general term for the normal business routine in the royal court. CDCH simply
notes that means serving the king.522
So, I was overcome with horror [ (Hithpolel, waw consecutive imperfect, 1st,
cs)] functions syntactically as a summary statement.523 When all is said and done, this line
summarizes where the vision has left Daniel. The Hithpolel stem is a variant of the Hithpael,
which in this case indicates that Daniel is transformed into the effected state signified by the
root.524 Again, Daniels state of mind is summarized in the sense of being overcome with horror.
Overcome with horror [] is from a semantic field of terms for horror, shuddering, terror.525
Daniel uses the term eight times.526 The ancient Near Eastern cognates of are interesting.
In Ugaritic, mm means to be astonished, to tremble; in Punic in the Hithpael
imperfect means to be filled with consternation, to be confused. 527 Otherwise, in the Hithpolel
stem, means to show oneself overcome with [1] amazement, [2] horror, or [3]
numbness.528 CDCH offers to be appalled, horrified.529 Holladay offers the following for
in Dan 8:27: to prove oneself driven to consternation. 530 Tyler Williams affirms that
there is an element of confusion mingled with the horror in ;531 this observation is
certainly borne out by the final clause in Dan 8:27: there was none to explain.
518 IBHS 33.2.1a.
519 Ibid., 33.2.1d.
520 See Deed, misdeed, work in NIDOTTE.
521 KB1, 586.
522 CDCH, 222.
523 For the waw consecutive imperfect signaling a summary statement, see IBHS 33.2.1d;
Gibson 78.
524 IBHS 26.2a.
525 See Horror, shuddering, terror in NIDOTTE.
526 8:13, 27; 9:18, 25, 272; 11:31; 12:11.
527 KB2, 1563.
528 Ibid., 1565-66.
529 CDCH, 468.
530 Holladay, 376.
531 Tyler Williams, , in NIDOTTE [H9037].
105

2016
Loren Lineberry,
One final point regarding should be made: this is the term that appears later in Daniel to
describe the abomination of desolation [Dan 11:31; 12:11]. There is surely a linkage intended
here: Daniels unspecified sense of horror is an intimation of things yet to come.
But, there was none who could explain [ ] is read as an antithetical
sentence owing to the negative particle []. The line is a verbless clause.
Explain [] is a Hiphil participle. The verbal root [] in the Hiphil is
causative.532 Accordingly, the ranges of meaning for in the Hiphil are: [1] to have/get
understanding, intelligence, [2] to make someone understand, [3] to explain something to
someone, and [4] to teach.533 The net effect is that, as far as Daniel is concerned, he still seems to
have questions concerning the vision that none, as yet, has explained to him.
Summary
Dan 8:27 is a brief yet emotionally powerful statement concerning the effects of the vision and
interpretation upon him. Once more, we find a man of God in direct communication with God
via a vision and the net effect is to thoroughly discombobulate the recipient; no praising God
here, rather the man is completely flummoxed by the vision. He is left with more questions than
the interpretation provided.
532 IBHS 27.3a.

533 KB1, 122.
106

An Expository Reading Guide To Daniel 8

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

An Expository Reading Guide To Daniel 8

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

An Expository Reading Guide to Daniel 8